Ombudsman Orders Higher Compensation From Insurer Over Mould Dispute

0

The homeowner, dissatisfied with earlier repair efforts concluded in May 2023, cited an expert analysis revealing ongoing mould contamination. The analysis detailed "moisture migration" from damp materials on the ground floor contributing to mould growth on the upper levels of the home. A mycologist’s inspection in August 2023 uncovered significant fungal spore concentrations throughout the property, including in the insulation and air-conditioning system.

Subsequent investigations indicated elevated spore levels within key areas such as a bedroom and bathroom. The mycologist conclusively stated that the property was not adequately remediated for mould.

Hollard refuted these findings, asserting repair work was satisfactory and contested the reliability of the homeowner's assessments, which were conducted six to ten weeks after Hollard’s expert, WEC, had reportedly verified the mould issues as resolved. Hollard suggested that any ongoing mould presence could be attributed to external factors, such as the homeowner’s pets or workers.

Conversely, the AFCA panel criticised Hollard’s WEC findings for their lack of specificity, primarily relying on generalized airborne mould testing. In contrast, the complainant's experts provided more comprehensive evaluations evidencing persistent mould issues.

The AFCA noted a contradiction in Hollard’s stance, linking the return of mould to non-claimable factors, as this was not in alignment with its own investigations which attempted to undermine the homeowner's findings of mould.

The authority concluded that Hollard had inadequately addressed the mould issue, likely exacerbated by insufficient containment and delays, allowing its spread to the upstairs area of the property.

In light of these findings, AFCA recommended a fair resolution involving a cash settlement to encompass a renewed scope of works with a 15% contingency increase. Moreover, Hollard is required to fund alternative accommodation while the property remains uninhabitable, compensate for any damage from its repair work, and cover the homeowner’s expert costs.

Additionally, Hollard has been mandated to pay a total of $5,400 in damages—$2,500 for the unresolved mould issue and $2,900 for failing to adhere to an earlier AFCA dispute outcome.

Published:Monday, 10th Mar 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more