Latest Legal Blogs : insurance law
How is your insurance claim going? What to do if things aren't going to plan
We sincerely hope life following the floods is returning to normal, or at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately for many that is not the case. Having endured the physical and emotional turmoil of the event itself, many are now embarking on the next phase which can be just as stressful – the insurance claim. But how can you take on an insurer if your claim does not go to plan? Is it even possible to challenge or reverse an insurer’s decision without becoming embroiled in costly litigation? Absolutely. Here’s how… We are fielding inquiries from affected parties about a huge variety of insurance issues: claims being rejected or contested, businesses who mistakenly thought they had flood cover, the scope of building work approved by insurers is insufficient, and some mysterious people called hydrologists providing reports used by insurers to deny claims. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) offers dispute resolution services to consumers and small business. AFCA deals with a very broad scope of complaints about insurance including complaints about insurance brokers. It can conduct negotiations between affected parties, make preliminary assessments of complaints and where all else fails make binding determinations.
Exclusion clauses in insurance contracts: how the Insurance Contracts Act protects you
Pantaenius Australia Pty Ltd -v- Watkins Syndicate 0457 at Lloyds [2016] FCA 1 This case note examines a recent decision of the Australian Federal Court in which an insurer was prevented from relying on an exclusion clause. The case highlights and reinforces the Court’s general interpretation of Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act in favour of the insured person. A yacht ran aground in Australian waters off the coast of Western Australia while returning from the Fremantle to Bali Yacht race. At the time of the incident, the yacht was insured under 2 insurance policies, one of which contained an exclusion where the vessel had been involved in a race of more than 100 nautical miles and had not yet returned to Australia. Whether the vessel had 'returned to Australia' was defined in the policy by reference to whether the vessel had cleared Australian customs. One of the insurers (underwritten by Pantaenius) admitted the claim in full; the other insurer (underwritten by Lloyds) sought to rely on the exclusion clause to refuse liability. Pantaenius argued that Lloyds should be required to contribute to the owner's claim.