Insurance denied

Hi,

Really feel sorry for the residents living in this block in Lidcombe.

From people's experience, what is the likely outcome for this sorry scenario?

Insurer rejects storm-damaged Lidcombe building claim because of numerous defects

Hundreds of residents left homeless after a storm ripped off the roof of their Lidcombe apartment block have suffered another blow, with their insurer rejecting their multi-million dollar claim.

Insurance giant AIG has denied payouts to repair the building - developed by controversial Auburn councillor Ronney Oueik - because its expert found it did not comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Structural engineer Roderick Broune concluded the roof was riddled with defects and that, had it met basic standards, it would have withstood the violent weather on Saturday, January 30.

 

Pre-existing structural faults are never covered by standard insurance policies.
Marg

 

Bit tough for the tenants

 

Ironic that Cr Oueik phonetically pronounced sounds like crook.

 

This is a good reason why it is important to avoid properties with unapproved or non-complying building works. I pulled out of a good deal because the building report picked up a non-complying building code issue. I knew if anything was to go wrong down the track, the insurance company would reject the claim on that basis.

 

If that's the case, not sure why they would consider still pursing legal actions against the insurance company.

Attached below is an example of owners funds going after Meriton and "allegations that it is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in strata levies in fighting the company".

Meriton's war of World Tower

 

"It was earlier revealed the strata agency managing the Lidcombe building until the day before the storm was Combined Real Estate, which is co-directed by Cr Oueik's council ally and mayor Le Lam."

Gee conflict of interest much? How can you expect the building manager act in the best interest of owners and raise defects with the builder when it is owned by the same party.

Another legal angle is purse the building manager for not doing their job and go through directors that way.

 

Ah, sue the Council.

 

Would AIG refund all the premiums paid?

 

Ahh..... Mehajer...would you bu a new/used car/house/cat/pot/pan/spoon from this character....?

 

Probably not. The insurance would have covered any issue that was not a result of the structural defect.
Marg

 

Owners should get on a current affairs programme and start a crowdfunding drive to pay legal fees, I reckon there would be a lot of people around the country who would contribute to see some of those smug smiles wiped off.

 

Had never heard of him before. After all of this nonsense I would give anything he's involved with a wide berth.

 

Don't use him as a wedding planner either

 

No they wouldn't, it would be in the T&Cs that you need to disclose all information. If they disclosed that the roof was not up to code and AIG insured it (without an exclusion) then they would of been paid. However if you didn't disclose (even due to not knowing) then your out of luck as it wasn't up to code which the insurance company are insuring you for a roof up to code.

It is like taking out trauma insurance and already having cancer, the insurance company will either;

1. Exclude your cancer from being part of the coverage
2. Charge you a premium to have it covered
3. Not insure you at all

 

i thought if it is being signed off by the surveyor that it would be compliant. So who is to say that it is not structural onot.

I have had a few claims rejected too (travel insurance, building claim etc) and then overturned and paid out. there were all legitimate claims.I think lodge a case with the financial ombudsman.

 

So then you sue the Surveyor as he made your insurance void and get reimbursement from them.

Not the insurance company fault it was approved when it shouldn't of been.

 

Having a certicate of compliance ensure it is done through code it shouldn't have be reverified again. For e.g. my AC had a leak - well i had a certs (plumbing electrical), the issue was the drain pipe was dragged through in btw the plaster and had nipped off the those aluminimum studs which cause a hole and leak. I claimed insurance (well initailly rejected and then approved) because i would not have known otherwise. it is not something that i hid or tried to hide. i relied on the certs for the appropriate person to do the job correctly.

Similar to car accident i had overseas was dragged through islamic court in jordan and put in jail, whether it is my fault or not (it was within my rights to make a claim whether i am right or wrong subject to conditions - like i wasn't drunk or on drugs etc).

I think its well within your right to claim and the insurance can chase or sue the building surveyor. Otherwise why even have insurance - every car accident you will be asking to sue the other person and the courts would be filled with additional process.

 

I do not think some of these characters play by the book, you know, they all on council, all vote on what helps each other, sell things cheap to each other (even council assets it seems) cheat on the buyers, cheat on the lenders, basically, from the commentary if true, they will cheat anyone/anything, the real crime is that we will let them off light most likely.

The insurer should pay and go after all assets of all involved, including those who signed off on it, the owners/residents would not likely be in any way complicit. Poor buggers.

 

Scary?