[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06] [07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [17]
[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [38]
[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [38]
Below are 38 consecutive FOS (Ombudsman) determination I have studied for storm claims, an amazing 98% of rulings are made in favour of the insurers. NOTE: the reasons for their ruling again in 98% of the case they are all for the same reasons. The insurers have engaged builders on their books to carry out reports 98% of which say poor construction, poor maintenance or wear and tear and finally no storm created openings.
On my story page you will see my slide photo's, these photo's clearly show the deformation of the roof and the section at the rear of the home partly collapsed, as well as very poorly covered holes with plastic that barely covers the damage, under the NRMA policy booklet this does not constitute a storm created opening, their must be a gapping hole.
You may have heard in the early days of "BLACK SATURDAY" their were articles in the news papers of whispers that insurers were contemplating denying claims based on the fact the fires were deliberately lit and not an act of nature. In their policy booklet they have every legal right to do this, Thank GOD we have a PM with a sense of moral duty to the people of Australia who stepped in and warn insures.
Take the time to read these determinations if only some of them. It only goes to show how vulnerable we are when it comes to insurance and how little protection we have when making claims. You may be happy now but the day will come when you don't get on with your claims manager and he or she could make your claim personal like John O'Loughlan did with my claim after I complained to his manager who forced him to rectify my claim, only in March 2008 his manager was made redundant after which my claim went to s--t and became personal once again.
One of the determinations I had read ruled in favour for the insurer, a reference was made as to faulty workmanship being the reason for the damage sustained. I went further to read the determination, only to learn that this faulty workmanship was from a previous repairs done by the same insurer from an earlier claim.
One only needs to read these documents, look at the policy's that are referred to by the Ombudsman. It is very clear from the wordings used to determine who the insurer is.
Had this truly been an unbiased approach then the Ombudsman would also publish the name of the insurer, so that the consumer could make the right choices.
On my story page you will see my slide photo's, these photo's clearly show the deformation of the roof and the section at the rear of the home partly collapsed, as well as very poorly covered holes with plastic that barely covers the damage, under the NRMA policy booklet this does not constitute a storm created opening, their must be a gapping hole.
You may have heard in the early days of "BLACK SATURDAY" their were articles in the news papers of whispers that insurers were contemplating denying claims based on the fact the fires were deliberately lit and not an act of nature. In their policy booklet they have every legal right to do this, Thank GOD we have a PM with a sense of moral duty to the people of Australia who stepped in and warn insures.
Take the time to read these determinations if only some of them. It only goes to show how vulnerable we are when it comes to insurance and how little protection we have when making claims. You may be happy now but the day will come when you don't get on with your claims manager and he or she could make your claim personal like John O'Loughlan did with my claim after I complained to his manager who forced him to rectify my claim, only in March 2008 his manager was made redundant after which my claim went to s--t and became personal once again.
One of the determinations I had read ruled in favour for the insurer, a reference was made as to faulty workmanship being the reason for the damage sustained. I went further to read the determination, only to learn that this faulty workmanship was from a previous repairs done by the same insurer from an earlier claim.
One only needs to read these documents, look at the policy's that are referred to by the Ombudsman. It is very clear from the wordings used to determine who the insurer is.
Had this truly been an unbiased approach then the Ombudsman would also publish the name of the insurer, so that the consumer could make the right choices.
 |
Copyright©2009 R Deren All Rights Reserved
Updated 27/12/2009