The Mercury reported last week that several Maitland residents had ­discovered that their home insurance policies contained a clause that meant they would not receive a payout for storm or flood damage to retaining walls on their properties.

A search of various Product Disclosure Statements from a range of insurance companies showed that many did not cover damage to retaining walls.

A poll published on the Mercury’s website last Friday showed that 92 per cent of the 451 respondents were of the view that insurance companies should cover damage to retaining walls, while only 8 per cent did not agree.

But comments on the Mercury’s Facebook page were more mixed. 

Some people said that insurance ­companies should cover all flood damage in the event of a natural disaster.

Meanwhile, several other people noted that it was important for people to ­regularly and thoroughly check what their insurance policy covered.

The feedback comes after a report that  Aberglasslyn man John Thomas faced a repair bill of between $70,000 and $75,000 for a retaining wall on his ­property, which was destroyed by a ­torrent of water during the April super storm.

His policy stated, in the Product Disclosure Statement, that storm and flood damage would not be covered for retaining walls – even structures built to an engineer’s specifications.

However, Mr Thomas is fighting the decision because he says he was not aware of the clause in the policy.

Paterson MP Bob Baldwin said the government could not issue directives to insurance companies.

But he said he had raised reports of issues between storm-affected residents and insurance companies with the Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. 

Mr Baldwin said the government hoped to gain a better understanding of some of the issues being raised, such as disagreements about the interpretation of what specific policies covered.