Keeping the Home Fires Burning

It did not take long for Steve and Sally to make friends in their new neighbourhood. Even though they had decided on a radical lifestyle change, they nevertheless maintained their habit of having a gin and tonic (or four) at sunset, looking out over the sea with neighbours of similar inclination.

Bev and Bill, who had been married for many years, also enjoyed this habit although they did not necessarily confine themselves to gin and tonic. Unfortunately, the alcohol they consumed added to the problems of a troubled relationship and it was not unknown for Bill to give Bev what he described as “a playful clip over the ear” after an alcohol-fuelled argument.

On 1 May 2006, following such an argument, the “clip over the ear” was misdirected and Bill gave Bev a black eye. She then obtained an intervention order to have him removed from the property. The day he was ordered out was the day the insurance policy was due for renewal.

Bev renewed the policy (also with Allsafe) which was in joint names because she proposed to live on the property on her own, or at least until Bill learnt to control his temper and his left hook. These events did not help Bill’s drinking problem and, one night, he arrived back at the home unannounced demanding reconciliation and an immediate resumption of the marital relationship. Steve and Sally happened to be there at the time and called the police at Bev’s request. Bill was then evicted from the property but Bev was so upset that she accepted Steve and Sally’s offer to stay at their home for the evening. In the early hours of the morning, Bill, even more alcohol-fuelled, came to the property with a can of petrol and set fire to it. By the time the fire brigade arrived, more than $100,000 damage had been done.

Even though Bev had renewed the property insurance, Allsafe would not pay on the basis of a policy exclusion, entitling them to refuse cover when one of the insured parties intentionally damaged the property.

Bev took the case to IOS claiming Bill no longer lived in the property and therefore it belonged to her so she should be paid the full amount. She said, in any event, he was out of his mind and/or drunk at the time and did not know what he was doing.

The insurance company eventually offered her half her claim on the basis she was innocent of these events. A case manager at IOS, after speaking to a Panel member, advised her to settle the claim for this amount because she may have recovered nothing if the matter had gone to the Panel, on the basis the parties had only recently separated and the policy had been recently renewed in joint names.

Bev took the offer and decided she would leave it to the Family Court to determine her final entitlements.