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.
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
Australia's construction sector continues to face pressure, with recent business reporting again pointing to elevated insolvency risk among builders and related operators. For tradespeople, that is not just a headline about another company's balance sheet. A builder collapse can quickly become a practical problem for subcontractors who have materials on site, tools locked in a compound, unpaid invoices, unfinished work and unclear responsibility for damaged or abandoned projects. - read more
Australia’s engineered stone ban and continuing regulator focus on silica exposure are more than a workplace safety issue for builders, renovators, tilers, stonemasons, plumbers, electricians and demolition contractors. They also create a practical insurance checkpoint for any trade business that cuts, drills, grinds, removes or works around dust-generating materials. - read more
Public liability insurance is designed to protect businesses and tradespeople against legal costs and compensation claims for injury or damage to property by a third party. In layman's terms, it covers you if someone sues your business for damages. - read more
Self-employed tradies and subcontractors may face legal, contractual and practical insurance expectations before starting work. This guide explains what to check before accepting a job in Australia. - read more
Running a trade business in Australia comes with its own set of unique challenges and risks. Whether you're an electrician, plumber, builder, or any other type of tradesperson, protecting your livelihood is crucial. - read more
Knowledgebase
Public Liability Insurance: A very broad term for insurance covering liability exposures for individuals and business owners. It provides broad coverage, generally including all exposures for property damage and bodily injury.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.