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

Netstrata Proceedings Put Strata Insurance Governance Back Under the Microscope

18 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

NSW Fair Trading’s criminal proceedings against Network Strata Services Pty Ltd, trading as Netstrata, have pushed strata governance and insurance transparency back into the national spotlight. The regulator alleges the company and its director and licensee in charge breached statutory obligations connected with strata scheme management in New South Wales, including alleged failures around conflicts of interest, undisclosed financial benefits and information provided to the regulator. - read more

Broker Disclosure Debate Puts Small Business Questions Back on the Table

18 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh dispute over the proposed Insurance Brokers Code of Practice has sharpened the focus on transparency for Australian small businesses. Industry figure John Trowbridge has criticised gaps in the draft code, particularly around whether brokers should disclose commissions and other remuneration to all clients, not only those captured by narrower product or client categories. - read more

AFCA Income Protection Decision Highlights a Hidden Risk for Variable Earners

18 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put a spotlight on a detail that can be easy to overlook: how an income protection policy defines income. In the case, a policyholder receiving payments under an employer-arranged group income protection policy argued that regular sales commissions should be counted when calculating his pre-disability income. - read more

Broker Transparency Debate: What Personal Trainers Should Watch

18 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh dispute over Australia’s insurance broking standards has put transparency back in the spotlight for small business policyholders, including personal trainers, fitness instructors and studio operators. On 17 July 2026, several consumer and strata owner groups withdrew from consultation on the National Insurance Brokers Association’s rewritten Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, arguing that industry self-regulation does not go far enough on conflicted payments and commission disclosure. - read more

What New Regulator Guidance Could Mean for Cover

18 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s life insurance sector has welcomed the Federal Government’s updated expectations for APRA and ASIC, a policy signal that could shape how insurers balance consumer protection, affordability and innovation. The new expectations ask the regulators to keep the financial system safe and stable while also supporting competition, productivity and proportionate oversight. For life insurance customers, the practical question is whether that balance leads to clearer products, better service and cover that remains within reach. - read more

Click for more Insurance News