Hi all,
A friend’s house got storm water damage. They went through insurance to claim on repairs. To their surprise damage to their paved driveway was not covered because it was deemed a “loose surface”, which is not claimable.
According to the PDS - “Not claimable on loss or damage to loose surfaces to paths and driveways.”
They are considering legal action because they don’t believe paving should be considered a loose surface.
What are peoples thoughts.
Thanks
Not sure what her pavers are made on. Just regular pavers you get from Bunnings or some masonry place. Not that it matters because it’s not the material that is the issue but the pavers itself for some reason it is considered “loose”.
Pavers loosely pressed into a layer of sand? Maybe your friend should have pressed them into a layer of cement.
Some states do paving differently. I believe in Melbourne they press them into concrete…
Well, According to the PDS - “Not claimable on loss or damage to loose surfaces to paths and driveways.”
Paving is removable so therefore loose.
A concrete surface is permanent
You could argue concrete is a loose surface too if pavers are removable. It is probably deliberate of them to not define what a loose surface is or what specific path or driveway is not covered.
To me a loose surface is something like small stones or pebbles for paths and driveways
concrete is not loose
A hand to a paver, a crane to a concrete. It’s all loose; it’s all relative.
@MuddyClear: yeh you should def take that logic to court.
lets looks at the subject matter at issue, that being storm water, not cranes
pavers are loose and easily dislodged by flowing storm water
concrete on the other hand is not
they have decided in their PDS to not cover that, your friend accepted that
if you wan't to argue with what you have asked, why fricken ask, just go ahead and sue the insurer
pavers are loose and easily dislodged by flowing storm water
concrete on the other hand is not
Actually flowing water can damage just about anything, including pavers and concrete.
if you wan't to argue with what you have asked, why fricken ask, just go ahead and sue the insurer
Maybe you are just use to people just agreeing with you all the time. Chill out bro
@MuddyClear: take it to court mate, i think you have zero chance
I personally don't care if you agree with me, I would just relay the pavers myself, its pretty piss easy to do.
but you have all the arguments in your mid to sue successfully, so go forth.
please report back what happens in court
but you have all the arguments in your mid to sue successfully, so go forth.
Are you a mid reader?
please report back what happens in court
I won’t be reporting back on outcomes whether she decides to sue or not because i cbf
My belief is that if ever you want to find out what your insurance does not cover then make a claim the that event.
Too late by the time you lodge a claim as my friend has found out. When it comes to insurance you get what you pay for.
When it comes to insurance you get what you pay for.
Yes, that is how a contract works. Especially if you choose an insurance product after reading the PDS
99% of people don’t read the PDS until they make a claim or had a bad experience with a past claim
my thought is you can sue them and you will lose.
I will pass on your thoughts to her. Thanks
Can they get their claim outcome reviewed by another facilitator? Some insurance companies state this is possible when the insured does not agree with the insurer's assessment.
Probably worth going down that route before any legal action…
I like your thoughts. Definitely no harm in asking. I will pass this message on to her
Looks pretty common. In the Canberra bushfires years back people had to gather up their driveway paving and retain walls to re use them after demolition as they were not included in insurance…
Interesting. Thanks for sharing
As part of the declinature information should have been given to your friend on how to appeal the decision.
Its fairly common for pavers to be used as driveways etc (mine is) so i would challenge the insurer.
I believe she can take the matter to AFCA for an opinion.
Retaining walls are common too but they are specifically not covered. The question is whether pavers are widely considered a “loose surface “. I wouldn’t have thought so otherwise people would not use them for paths and driveways…
Some people have the opinion that because you can remove pavers with relative ease it’s therefore a “loose surface”. But that is after you remove the perimeter concrete around the paving first, otherwise not so easy - there’s loose and there is loose.
Loose surface isn’t defined in the PDS I bet?
So it reverts to ordinary meaning. To me pavers aren’t ‘loose’.
Bit of a suss for terminology lead me here:
https://dipl.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/240412/Ro…
Loose Surface
A layer of unbound or coarse material on the pavement surface. Can be very fine material (bull dust or sand), or large material in coarse gravel pavements.
Have a chat to someone who specialises in this kind of thing. Most brokers use these guys:
You’ll get your answer from them
You legend.
Correct, loose surface is not defined in the PDS.
I will pass the information forward about imigroup. Do they provide a free service to the general public?
Free for businesses.
Do they conduct private claims?
If they work like lawyers… no win no fee. Losing team pays legal fees…
Definitely not free for domestic. Most business or body Corp policies have cover for their fees though
According to the PDS - “Not claimable on loss or damage to loose surfaces to paths and driveways.”
What is the exact wording of the PDS? That sentence is poorly written and does not make a lot of grammatical sense (too many "to"'s)
It would be perfectly understandable if the PDS said:
Not claimable on loss or damage:
- to loose surfaces
- to paths and driveways.
Not claimable on loss or damage to:
Your bullet point is not how I would expect a legal clause to be written. Words matter. You can bet the lawyers have gone over it with a fine toothed comb to make sure it is unambiguous and grammatically correct. What is a "loose surface to paths and driveways"? That would literally mean a load of loose gravel, stones or soil spread on the surface between your back door and the concrete driveway/path a few meters away. Here the "to" means "leading in that direction". "From" would be a better preposition in that sentence. If they said "a loose surface from paths and driveways" it would have a completely different meaning, as "from" denotes ownership or origin of the material. You can't assume the writer meant "(belonging) to" when using the word "to". If he did mean to include it, he would have written it, or else used a non-ambiguous word like "from".
These days I wouldn't be surprised what passes for proper grammar and spelling. We have had generations of kids of calling out people who know better, trying to draw attention to someone's typo's and spelling by calling them Grammar Nazis. All to cover for their own ignorance and lack of education. I'm grateful official communications are generally flawlessly written. It makes the mis-spellings and bad grammar in spam readily obvious.
I'd ring them and find out exactly what they meant by the phrase they used and go from there.
"From" would be a better preposition in that sentence.
Sorry, it’s suppose to be from
I'd ring them and find out exactly what they meant by the phrase they used and go from there.
The matter is now resolved.
They are considering legal action because they don’t believe paving should be considered a loose surface.
and
Not sure what her pavers are made on. Just regular pavers you get from Bunnings or some masonry place.
Isnt it cheaper to re do with Bunnings material than calling for lawers?
Legal action is the last resort. More often than not it is settled via a mediator such as AFCA.
But in regards to legal action, again most likely settled out of court, as this is a small case.
If it does go to court then usually the losing party pays the legal costs. Check with your lawyer though
True but based on your comment, doddgy paving job, how much do you think it going to cost to fix it? Is it worth it?
Dodgy? No, according to what I know she has had the builder accessed it as water damaged. The insurer has confirm this but is excluding this item due to is being “loose surface “.
My question to you is why fix it yourself if you are paying for insurance.
Update: insurer has reversed their decision on this item exclusion following her complaint using the advice given here. Special thanks to bemybubble who’s advice was invaluable.
Case closed.
Excellent. Did you chat over the phone or email them? Would love to know the response you sent.
Picture of driveway?
What is the actual surface material?