AIG Insurance Tangle Over Vacant Property Break-In Unravels
AIG Insurance Tangle Over Vacant Property Break-In Unravels
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.
A landlord initially seeking compensation of $102,270 for theft and repair costs following a break-in at a vacant commercial property was awarded $45,724 after a protracted insurance dispute with AIG Australia.
The issue revolved around discrepancies over a premium for an unoccupied building.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) intervened, reducing the payout by $56,546. This amount corresponds to the difference the landlord would have owed AIG in premiums to insure a building unoccupied for more than 90 consecutive days — an arrangement the landlord neglected, despite receiving clear directives from a broker.
The landlord, with guidance from their broker, had filed a claim last July after criminals gained access through a leased security gate, prompting AIG to refuse the claim due to the structure’s vacant status, which wasn't covered under the policy.
Prior to the unfortunate event, the broker had made the building owner and managing agent aware of the need to refresh AIG of the vacant situation, potentially affecting claims, and the possibility of acquiring extra coverage by adjusting the premium.
Despite the advice, the owner failed to take action, leading to AIG being notified about the vacancy only post-theft. AFCA indicated that AIG would likely have underwritten the unoccupancy risk had they been told, and determined it fair to authorize the claim — factoring in the supplemental premium and other conditions like an excess charge.
Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act became pivotal, with AFCA stating that the breach pertained to not informing the insurer of the decision to leave the property vacant beyond 90 days without seeking written permission — not merely the fact that the premises were left empty.
An AFCA official explained, “I am not of the view that the complainant’s failure to request the insurer’s written consent ... can reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to the malicious damage and theft event.â€
They emphasized, “The insurer cannot refuse to pay the claim by reason only of the post-contractual act, that is, by reason only of the complainant’s failure to seek its written consent. The insurer is, however, entitled to reduce its liability to the extent that it has been prejudiced.â€
AFCA specified that AIG had not proved the extent of its disadvantage equaled its ability to completely dismiss its liability under the policy. Instead, AFCA accepted that the liability compared to the additional premium deemed appropriate if the vacancy had been disclosed.
Arguments suggesting partial occupancy, due to daily visits from a property manager and maintenance by contractors, were rejected, as was the claim that it was unjust to deny coverage because the theft transpired over a weekend when the premises would be unoccupied even if tenanted.
This information originally featured in an article in Insurance News Magazine.
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.
Fresh small business cyber warnings are a practical reminder that digital risk is no longer just a concern for large companies with complex IT systems. For Australian tradespeople, the most damaging cyber incident may be far simpler: a fake invoice, altered bank details, a compromised email account or a scam message that looks like it came from a supplier, builder, real estate agent or client. - read more
APRA’s latest quarterly general insurance statistics point to a market that is still under cost pressure, even as insurers continue to report stronger overall results than during the worst of the recent claims cycle. For Australian tradespeople, the headline is not simply whether insurers are profitable. The practical issue is how rising premiums, repair costs, reinsurance expenses and claims activity flow through to the price and availability of cover used every day on the tools. - read more
Renewed insurance industry warnings about severe weather are a practical reminder for Australian tradespeople: storm risk is not limited to damaged homes and flooded streets. It can also affect tools in a ute, materials stored on site, unfinished work, temporary fencing, scaffolding, electrical gear, excavation areas and client property surrounding a job. - read more
Australian tradies work across client homes, building sites, vehicles and workshops, often with tools, equipment and physical risks involved. The right mix of insurance can vary by trade, business structure and the type of work performed, but several cover types are commonly considered by tradespeople who want to manage third-party liability, income interruption and asset risks. - read more
If you use a ute, van, trailer or other vehicle for trade work, your insurance needs may be different from a standard personal car policy. This guide explains how commercial vehicle insurance can apply to tradies, what to disclose, and how vehicle, tool and business risks can interact. - read more
Specialized insurance for tradespeople is a form of tailored insurance coverage designed specifically to meet the unique needs and risks that professionals in various trades encounter. This includes trades such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and other similar occupations. - read more
Knowledgebase
Liability Insurance: Insurance that provides protection from claims arising from injuries or damage to other people or property
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.