AIG Insurance Tangle Over Vacant Property Break-In Unravels

1

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.”

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.”

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.

Published:Friday, 1st Nov 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Rising Mental Health Claims Reshape Australia's Insurance Landscape

07 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

Australia's insurance sector is experiencing a significant shift as mental health conditions become the predominant cause of total and permanent disability (TPD) claims. Recent data from the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) indicates that mental health issues now account for nearly one-third of all TPD claims, marking a substantial change in the industry's claim patterns. - read more

Surge in Mental Health Claims Puts Pressure on Australia's Insurance Industry

29 Sep 2025: Paige Estritori

Australia's life insurance sector is facing unprecedented challenges as mental health conditions have become the leading cause of total and permanent disability (TPD) claims. Recent data from the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) reveals that mental health issues now account for nearly one-third of all TPD claims paid out. - read more

Rest Super Faces Class Action Over Alleged Wrongful Deduction of Income Protection Premiums

29 Sep 2025: Paige Estritori

Shine Lawyers has initiated class action proceedings in the Federal Court against Rest Superannuation, alleging that the fund wrongfully deducted income protection premiums from members' accounts between December 2008 and June 2019. The lawsuit claims that up to 500,000 Rest members may have been affected by these deductions. - read more

Click for more Insurance News