1. Had a claim against an insurance company that really bad damage to wooden floors was a result of maliscious and /or vandalism behavior. 2. Agents told me to get it fixed but take pictures - did so 3. Assessor got letter from repairmen that said"no way it was normal wear and tear" and "could only be maliscious" 3. Pictures clearly showed the damage 4. Assessor added his comment it may have been something like a tenent walking all over the floor in high heels 5. Repairmen said "no - not like that at all - more like a someone with golf shoes or footy shoes". 6. I suggested it almost looked like someone hitting the floor repeatedly with a small hammer or a kitchen utensil 7. Insurance rejected claim saying it was" normal wear and use by a tenant" 8. Invited me to appeal via their in-house conflict resolutuion officer - and HEY - he supported the co. 9. Went to the Insurance enquiries and Complaints Ltd who's supposed to be impartial and they said that it was up to me to establish on balance of probabilities that I had suffered an insurable loss as per plan
With that, they reject the insurance notion of it being "normal living wear and tear"
But then - and here's the rub - they reject the damage was malicious. They say the repairmen's version doesnt really help me and my thoughts about the hammer was speculative
As well and IMPORTANTLY, evidence was given that the tenenats were "from hell" with lots of other damage not claimed for, police raids including swat teams, left owing a heap of rent, the place was a bloddy shambles and there are 2 other landlords after them
The arguemnet was made if there is any doubt as to whether the damage was malicious then the actions and behaviours of the tenants need to be seen as a context.
No mention of this in the findings
They supported the insurance company inrejecting the claim
Does anyone think I can take this to small claims court???
