Australia's leading provider of affordable DIY legal kits
Call our Customer Care Specialists on 1300 728 200
   

Legal Forum

Welcome to the FREE AussieLegal Forum

This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.

To be sure we provide you with the most relevant information to your state, please let us know which state you your legal matter resides in:

ACT  NSW  NT  QLD  SA  TAS  VIC  WA  

AussieLegal recommends this law firm:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proximate cause

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Rowan View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07/January/2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
  Quote Rowan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Proximate cause
    Posted: 07/January/2018 at 23:01
Hello.

First off apologies if there is already a discussion on this, i tried several time to search but received an error each time.

My question relates to an insurance claim for damages resulting from a burst water pipe.

The facts are:

A water pipe burst in our (double brick) wall behind our shower.

Our house insurance policy covers us for damage cause by burst pipes but i am not covered for "The cost to repair the item from which the water leaked or escaped".

The plumber has repaired the pipe but now there is a hole in the wall where he had to access the pipe and likely a large bill to re-tile the whole bathroom.

Insurance has denied my claim based on the above exclusion and have said there is no resultant damage from the burst pipe.

I have already paid for the repair to the pipe so essentially i believe we are arguing over the cause of the damage to the wall and likely need to re-tile the whole bathroom.

To me the proximate cause of the damage is the burst pipe, but i am wondering if the exclusion above has any impact.

I was hoping someone could let me know if there is a flaw in my logic/argument. I have been searching for some information before i go to the Ombudsman and have found a lot of information on proximate cause, but given my lack of expertise in this field i could be off base.

Thankyou in advance.
Rowan

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 627
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/January/2018 at 21:34
If the policy states that cover is only for consequential damage and not for the repair of the original fault, I believe you are out of luck.

Re-tiling the bathroom is usually unnecessary, it may take a bit of searching to find the same tiles but usually it can be done. Have a look around the property for discarded surplus tiles from the original job, there usually are some and not everyone throws them out. Failing that go to a reputable tile shop with a sample and see what they say. When I had such a problem years ago, the tile shop knew the make and style of the tile but didn't have any, but by email found a box at another of their companies outlets and had it sent, only cost me the cost of the box and some freight. The job was small so I did the tiling myself.

Good luck.

Rowan View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07/January/2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
  Quote Rowan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/January/2018 at 12:59
Thanks CJ

I have some tiles as we only did the bathroom 5 years ago, but because the waterproof membrane will need to be replaced pretty much the whole bathroom needs to be redone (this is what the insurance assessor said too).

I am covered for consequential damages, but I am responsible for "repairing the item from which the water escaped". I would argue the "item" is the pipe which I have repaired but the damage to the wall is a direct result of the water leak and therefore should be covered.

I am just trying to determine if the exclusion impacts on the proximate cause being the leak.

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 627
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10/January/2018 at 01:27
All you can do is lodge a claim and take it to the ombudsman if the insurance company knock it back. It's not worth going to court over the matter, the money would be better spent fixing the bathroom.

 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Want to save money?

Check out our list of do-it-yourself legal kits.

Need formal advice?

Let us help you find a lawyer who specializes in your particular area of law.

Need further information?

Visit our legal forum where you can ask questions and search for similar topics.