Dispute Over Damages Caused by Violent Painters: Homeowners Unable to Increase Insurer's Offer
Homeowners Lose Battle for Higher Compensation After Painter Attack Damages
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
Homeowners claimed damages from contracted painters who damaged their property during a violent attack.
However, they have lost their challenge to increase their insurer's cash settlement offer of $53,000.
After purchasing the house, renovations were ongoing when a group of painters caused damage to several walls and windows in November 2021. The homeowners lodged a claim with IAG, and the male claimant alleged that the workers had "turned on him" during a meeting over workmanship issues and attacked him before causing damage to the property. The painters were later arrested for assault.
Assessment and Offer from IAG
An assessment from an insurer-appointed builder recommended that the matter be handled with a cash settlement, as repairs might not match the existing texture. The scope of works (SOW) for the repairs quoted by the builder was $13,203 in early December. Despite this, the complainants were not satisfied with IAG's offer, and the insurer's requested the builder to revisit the initial quote. AI updated the initial quote, and IAG offered a cash settlement based on the revised quote in April last year, which the homeowners dismissed again.
They had instead obtained a report from a quantity surveyor, referred to as JB, which stated that AI's SOW was insufficient to cover the rectification works and "not a genuine quotation". JB observed that the property had sustained water and ceiling damage, which led to mold growth. The surveyor quoted a repair cost of $120,000 to $130,000.
However, IAG denied responsibility for the mold or water damage and advised that the complainants would have to file a separate claim for the damage to be assessed. In August, IAG offered to increase its cash settlement by 25%, taking its offer to $24,765, which the claimants also rejected.
Builder's Report and Insurance Settlement Offer
The insurer then engaged a building consultant, referred to as CF, to inspect the property and report on the damage. However, the complainants denied them access. But CF provided a desktop report based on an analysis of the various quotes. The consultant estimated that the repair cost amounted to $39,504, which IAG uplifted with a 20% contingency and fees to cover four weeks of temporary accommodation. This led to the insurer’s offer amounting to $53,000.
The homeowners disagreed that the offered settlement was inadequate since it did not consider rectification works for mold damage, which had worsened due to the insurer's delays. However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that there had been no evidence to show "a causative link" between the malicious damage and water ingress, leading to mold growth.
"Given that the malicious damage involved scratching and gouging to internal walls and a window frame, the panel on balance considers it unlikely any such link exists," AFCA stated.
The panel further revealed that the delays that led to the mold growth could be attributed to the complainants' failure to provide an itemized counter-quote until mid-June last year, more than seven months after the claim had been lodged. If the homeowners wished to have the mold damage covered, they would have to file a separate claim.
AFCA Ruling
The AFCA acknowledged that IAG's offer was "overall reasonable" and required the insurer to waive the $1000 policy excess. The ruling also stated that IAG's offer for temporary accommodation was fair, despite assessments that suggested it would not be required. The homeowners' request for ten months' worth of accommodation, estimated to cost $23,336, was turned down by AFCA.
In summary, the insurer denied a request by complainants for a higher payout over damages caused by violent painters who were also charged with assault in November 2021. This decision was supported by AFCA, which found IAG's offer reasonable and fair, and the homeowners would need to file a separate claim for mold damage.
Published:Wednesday, 31st May 2023 Source: Paige Estritori
Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.
RACQ Insurance has recently announced the cessation of coverage for rideshare and food delivery vehicles, effective from November 3, 2023. This decision stems from a notable increase in claims associated with these services, prompting the insurer to reassess its offerings. - read more
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a restaurant owner, directing the insurer to honour an arson claim despite the director's failure to disclose a past criminal conviction. This decision underscores the importance of clear communication and due diligence in the insurance application process. - read more
Upcover, a Sydney-based insurtech company, has recently launched a management liability insurance product tailored specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and sole traders. With premiums starting at $780 per year for a $1 million coverage limit, this offering aims to provide affordable and comprehensive protection against various business risks. - read more
CHU, Australia's leading strata insurance underwriting agency, has released its 2025 State of the Strata Market report, providing a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the industry. The report offers valuable insights into premium movements, the impact of weather events, regulatory developments, and emerging risks affecting strata insurance. - read more
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently called for substantial reforms to Victoria's strata legislation, citing a direct correlation between inadequate governance and escalating insurance premiums for residents. With approximately one in five Victorians residing in strata-titled properties, the need for effective management and oversight has become increasingly critical. - read more
The digital age has fundamentally transformed how we approach almost every aspect of our lives, including the way we shop for life insurance in Australia. Gone are the days when one had to schedule meetings with insurance agents or flip through pamphlets to understand life insurance policies. Today, obtaining life insurance quotes online has become the norm, offering a hassle-free and incredibly accessible platform for individuals to safeguard their financial future. - read more
Choosing the right life insurance policy is one of the most important decisions for Australians, especially for those who are middle-aged or older. Life insurance provides financial security for your loved ones in the event of your passing, ensuring that they are not burdened with financial hardships. - read more
The financial fabric of our lives consists of both planning and safeguarding against the unforeseen. Trauma cover, a lesser-known but crucial aspect of personal insurance, provides this protection by offering a lump sum payment upon diagnosis of specific serious illnesses or injuries. In the tapestry of financial planning, it acts as a vital safety net, ensuring that unexpected health crises do not lead to monetary distress. - read more
When it comes to life insurance, a pre-existing condition refers to any medical condition or illness that you have been diagnosed with before applying for a life insurance policy. - read more
Life insurance is a cornerstone of financial planning for Aussie families, offering protection and peace of mind. But what happens when the bustling flow of life brings changes? This is where a life insurance review comes into play. A life insurance review is a thorough analysis of your existing policy to ensure it aligns with your current life circumstances and financial goals. - read more
Start Here !
Apply now for your free Insurance assessment and price comparisons!
Knowledgebase
Subrogation: The process by which an insurance company seeks to recover the amount paid to the policyholder from a third party responsible for the loss.
