Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute

1

The policyholder initially applied for coverage in August 2022, designating her property for "private use." However, IAG contested this, asserting that she had registered her business at the same location in September 2021. The insurer claimed that the woman's home served as the base for her online business, which purportedly involved managing 15 employees and engaging in wholesale goods.

In her defence, the claimant argued that she was truthful when procuring the insurance, claiming she did not operate any business activities onsite at the time of policy inception. According to her account, the business address was used solely for Australian Business Number registration purposes, and her business operations were conducted elsewhere. She further substantiated her claim by providing documentation that showed stock deliveries were made to her ex-husband's address, not her rental property.

AFCA noted that IAG's allegations primarily relied on inferred conclusions drawn from the policyholder's tax documentation and business registration rather than concrete, current operational evidence. According to the ombudsman, the insurer's evidence emerged months after the policy was issued, lacking immediate records of business activity at the rental property.

In its ruling, AFCA concluded that the insurer failed to present sufficient evidence to support its accusation of fraudulent behaviour. The ombudsman highlighted that a company's registered address does not inherently reflect active business operations at that location. Given the circumstances, AFCA advised IAG to reassess its decision, reinstate the woman's policy, and honour her theft claim.

This ruling underscores the nuanced considerations involved when insurers assess the validity of policyholder claims concerning home business disclosures.

Published:Monday, 30th Jun 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more