ASIC Takes Hollard Insurance to Court Over Significant Claim Handling Issues

1

ASIC's case against Hollard revolves around the insurer's handling of the couple's claim following storm damage to their property in October 2021. The regulator claims Hollard's excessive delays and failure to conduct essential make-safe work have rendered the couple's home uninhabitable, leading to extensive moisture, mould, and decay issues that necessitate demolition and rebuilding.

Sarah Court, ASIC's deputy chair, highlighted the seriousness of the delays, stating that such prolonged inaction is unacceptable and potentially unlawful. The legal action aims to address growing concerns about increasing general insurance complaints and send a strong message about the unacceptability of such delays.

The claim, initially filed in October 2021, took Hollard nearly three and a half years to resolve. The insurer rejected the claim in April 2023, 18 months after its submission. Following this, the couple sought intervention from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which directed Hollard to provide compensation for non-financial losses and substantiated the storm as the proximate cause of the damage.

Hollard eventually consented to a cash settlement exceeding $1.5 million. However, ASIC contends that despite initially accepting the claim, Hollard delayed decisions regarding repairs, took over nine months to arrange a structural engineer inspection, and postponed the provision of temporary accommodation.

Responding to the legal action, a Hollard spokesperson acknowledged the proceedings and expressed support for ASIC's efforts in fostering consumer-positive outcomes. They noted Hollard's cooperation with ASIC but refrained from further commenting due to the ongoing nature of the legal matter.

Published:Monday, 14th Apr 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Potential AI Errors: A Looming Challenge for Insurers 24 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori Industry experts are signaling a potential risk for underwriters due to claims arising from inaccuracies produced by artificial intelligence (AI), likening it to the 'silent cyber' phenomenon of the past. Clyde & Co partner, Darryl Smith, highlights the issue, emphasizing how AI inaccuracies could impact various insurance policies, sometimes without immediate detection. - read more

AFCA Supports RAA Insurance in Vehicle Location Dispute 24 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori An insurance dispute over the location of a vehicle culminated in the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) backing RAA Insurance in their decision to deny a claim. The issue surrounded the policyholder's claim that her son’s car was stored in South Australia, while the vehicle was allegedly used and registered in Victoria. - read more

AFCA Sides with Homeowners in Landmark Insurance Dispute Over Property Cracks 22 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori Homeowners recently secured a favourable ruling against their insurer after a water leak led to significant structural damage. After large cracks emerged on their property, Youi initially denied the insurance claim, attributing the damage to pre-existing issues like earth movement and tree root intrusion, both of which are exclusions in their policy. - read more

Climate Change Threatens Australian Suburbs with Unaffordable Insurance 17 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori More than 4% of Australian properties are currently facing heightened risks from natural hazards exacerbated by climate change, rendering insurance coverage often unaffordable or unavailable, according to recent findings by Climate Valuation. An analysis of over 15 million properties across 15,000 suburbs also highlights that an additional 10% are at moderate risk from disasters such as floods, bushfires, tropical cyclones, coastal inundation, and extreme winds. - read more

Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up 16 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori A contentious insurance claim has ended unfavourably for a motor policyholder after her husband mistakenly poured diesel exhaust fluid into her car's fuel tank. Although the policyholder initially received assurances from a Suncorp representative that the use of AdBlue fluid wouldn't be considered improper fuelling – supposedly an excluded scenario under her policy – the claim was later denied. This decision has sparked debate around policy definitions and customer service communication. - read more