Having to pay a $75,000 damage bill out of your own pocket after a natural disaster is an unfair way to learn to read the fine print of a contract.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Aberglasslyn man John Thomas is trying to avoid being stung by what appears to be a common, but not commonly known, condition in home building insurance policies.
The 1.4-metre high retaining wall at his home was destroyed during the April superstorm, when a torrent of water caused the wall to burst and spew bricks at his neighbour’s house.
His insurance provider has told him that it will not cover the cost of the damage. The Mercury has heard of several other cases from around the Hunter recently of people who have tried to claim thousands of dollars worth of damage to retaining walls only to find a clause in the fine print of their policy saying that the structures are not covered.
A search of Public Disclosure Statements of several insurance companies shows that most providers don’t cover storm damage to retaining walls.
One side of the argument is that the potential customer should read their entire policy and all of the conditions that apply before signing on the dotted line.
But despite the warnings, many of us don’t read entire policy documents before signing with an insurance provider.
However, when a company is asking for an annual fee worth hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars for a service that may never be called upon, they should bend over backwards to make sure that customers understand significant details of their policy.
When a clause is invoked that could put a $75,000 hole in a policy holder’s wallet, that’s a significant detail that should have been waved in front of the customer’s face like a red flag.