Quake Damage Claims Dismissed Over Previous Faults

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.

The company behind the claim stated that the properties were impacted by a 5.4-magnitude earthquake that occurred in November 2018. Although the earthquake's epicenter was approximately 45 kilometers away from the buildings, Geoscience Australia specified the evident damage radius to be no more than 27 kilometers from the epicenter.

In their defense, the claimant's engineering expert conceded that the buildings were situated outside the primary damage zone but contended that the earthquake’s vibrations had unleashed energy beneath the geological formations on which the houses stood.

The expert identified "preexisting or dormant conditions" in the properties, including previously repaired damage which, according to him, reopened due to ground movement prompted by the quake, also leading to the manifestation of new fractures.

Meanwhile, Allianz, the insurance provider, enlisted a forensic civil and structural engineer who assessed the damages. His findings revealed brickwork fissures in multiple sections of one property, referred to as House H, and evident cracks within the garage of the second property, termed House P, in addition to a separation between a storeroom and the home.

The engineer hired by Allianz attributed the damage to prolonged foundation instability and deterioration of the mortar used in the brickwork, rather than to the seismic event.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) upheld the insurer’s position, noting that both engineers corroborated the presence of damage similar to what was being contested even before the 2018 earthquake, specifically in House H.

AFCA further mentioned that updates made to certain rooms within the house remained unaffected, while external brickwork conditions pointed towards significant wear and tear, contributing to the losses. Comparable remarks were also made in regard to House P.

"While both experts agree it is conceivable for House H to incur earthquake-related damage under ideal conditions despite its location outside the designated impact radius, the insurer's expert refuted the existence of such conditions in this case," stated the adjudicator from AFCA.

"Even if the earthquake were recognized as being a proximate cause of the damage to House H, it would coexist with other excluded factors (wear and tear, prolonged structural movement)."

"Consequently, the insurer maintains the right to invoke those exclusions as a basis for denying the claim," AFCA concluded.

Published:Thursday, 1st Aug 2024
Author: Paige Estritori

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Why Pre-Existing Medical Conditions Need Extra Attention Before You Travel

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Australian travellers with pre-existing medical conditions have been given a timely reminder to look beyond price when arranging travel insurance, with recently updated consumer guidance placing renewed emphasis on disclosure, medical assessments and policy wording. - read more

What Delta’s Digital Insurance Move Means for Real Estate Agencies

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Delta Insurance’s move onto Ebix Australia’s Sunrise Exchange is a useful signal for real estate agencies watching how business insurance is being distributed. The underwriting agency has made its cyber and management liability products available through the platform for the first time, using Entsia technology and an accelerated accreditation pathway. Further products are expected to follow, which points to continuing momentum behind digital placement for financial lines cover. - read more

What a Failed Fridge Claim Means for Restaurant Insurance

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent insurance dispute involving a faulty vaccine fridge has a useful warning for Australian restaurant and café owners: a broken fridge is not always enough to secure a payout. In the case, reported on 26 June 2026, a business policyholder argued that a refrigeration unit had moved outside the required temperature range and could not be restored through resets. The owner believed an internal control component had failed and sought cover under an equipment failure section of the policy. - read more

Vero’s No-Commission Strata Launch Adds Fresh Pressure to a Changing Market

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Vero has entered the residential strata market with a nil-commission product aimed at addressing some of the placement challenges facing owners corporations, particularly in higher-risk regions. The product will initially be available through intermediaries in Far North Queensland and Darwin, with a broader national rollout planned in stages. - read more

Tool Theft Claim Falls Short After Portable Items Limit Applied

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely reminder for tradies that the words in a policy schedule can matter just as much as the headline sum insured. The dispute involved a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after receiving far less than it believed the policy should provide. - read more

Click for more Insurance News