While the houses and streets around her own have slowly scraped away the mud and rebuilt after the April floods, Kathryn Wittmann’s return to normality has been uncertain and slow.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Like other insurance providers, Allianz dug its heels in over a distinction between stormwater and floodwater damage.
While the Wittmann family’s seven-month battle of wills with the insurer is ongoing, the house has been stripped and nearly rebuilt. The Wittmanns are on track to moving back in before Christmas. But after that they are considering approaching the insurance industry ombudsman.
“This isn’t fun, it’s not been a holiday,” Ms Wittmann said.
“It’s been distressing, traumatising.
“But you have to keep fighting, you can’t accept what [the insurance companies] tell you.”
With almost all their furniture and worldly possessions destroyed, Ms Wittmann said she was looking forward to Christmas.
“It’ll be extremely minimalist,” she said with a laugh.
“But it will be fantastic to be back in our home.”
Ms Wittmann and her husband Ralf featured frequently in media from the April storms when they rescued their elderly neighbours Don and Thea Redman.
Ms Wittmann said she claimed $226,000 for damages but Allianz disputed the amount.
“They claimed it was floodwater, not stormwater that caused the damage,” Ms Wittmann said.
“This is not a flood zone, this was 2.6 metres higher than the last record.
“They just wanted us to go away.”
Ms Wittmann launched a social media crusade, posting her story on every branch of the insurance company’s Facebook presence from Allianz Ireland to Allianz Australia.
“I just made noise, became the squeaky wheel until they took notice,” she said.
“I had to go through internal dispute resolution just to get a case manager.”
Allianz agreed to pay two thirds of her claim, leaving her more than $80,000 short. She accepted with ‘reservation of rights’.
Allianz’s general manager of corporate affairs Nicholas Schofield said there was little doubt that Dungog experienced a flood, which Mrs Wittmann’s policy did not cover.
“Allianz believes it would be unfair to our Dungog customers who chose and paid for flood cover to pay the flood claims of those policyholders who chose not to include and pay for flood cover,” he said.
“If Ms Wittman had chosen flood cover, she would have been fully covered for the damage caused by the flood waters that entered her house.”
“For Ms Wittman, Allianz made all efforts to provide the maximum possible benefits under the policy, reflecting that fact that she had specifically decided to not purchase flood cover.
“This included giving every benefit of the doubt in order to provide cover for the damage caused by rainwater that came into the house from under the eaves, as opposed to the flood water, that came from the nearby creek , which overflowed and inundated the house.”
Ms Wittmann said she encouraged people to closely examine their policy and hoped others would take a strong stand after reading her story.
