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.

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
Author: Paige Estritori

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.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ASIC Claims Scrutiny Highlights What Income Protection Customers Should Check

02 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent regulatory attention on life insurance claims handling has again highlighted a practical issue for Australians who rely on income protection insurance: the value of cover is tested most clearly when a person is too unwell or injured to keep earning. While the industry has been working to improve service standards, the latest scrutiny reinforces that delays, unclear requests for information and poor communication can make an already stressful period harder for claimants. - read more

Latest APRA Figures Keep Income Protection Under the Spotlight

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has again highlighted why income protection remains one of the most closely watched parts of the Australian insurance market. While the broader life insurance sector has continued to show signs of improved stability, disability income products remain sensitive to claims trends, pricing assumptions and the length of time people stay off work after illness or injury. - read more

Life Code Findings Put Income Protection Claims Back Under the Microscope

12 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest industry attention on Life Insurance Code compliance is another reminder that income protection insurance is not just about having a policy in place. For working Australians, the real test comes when illness or injury interrupts earnings and a claim needs to move from paperwork to practical financial support. - read more

Claims Handling Scrutiny Offers Income Protection Lessons

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry attention on insurance claims handling has put a practical issue back in front of Australian households: a policy is only as valuable as the support it provides when a claim is made. For income protection insurance, that moment often arrives during illness, injury, stress and reduced cash flow, so clear communication and timely assessment matter enormously. - read more

New APRA Data Reinforces the Need to Review Income Protection Cover

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has put income protection back under the spotlight, with disability income products continuing to be one of the more closely watched areas of the sector. While the broader life insurance industry has been showing signs of improved stability, the update reinforces that policies designed to replace income after illness or injury remain sensitive to claims experience, pricing, and changing work and health trends. - read more

AFCA Decision Highlights Limits on Recovering Income Protection Payments

22 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has offered an important reminder for anyone relying on income protection insurance through work or super: once benefits have been paid, an insurer generally needs a strong and clearly evidenced basis before asking for that money back. - read more

Click for more Insurance News