A recent AFCA decision is a useful reminder that not every kind of water damage is covered in the same way under a home policy, even when water seems to have caused the harm.
The Clean That Went Wrong
A homeowner had a contractor pressure-clean the roof of his property. He said the process damaged the roof and let water into the home, causing internal damage, and lodged a claim under his policy’s escape of liquid section seeking a new metal roof, insulation and wiring.
Suncorp’s builder inspected and found the roof was aged, with numerous holes, lifted nails and widespread rust. The insurer denied the claim, arguing that water intentionally sprayed from a pressure washer doesn’t count as liquid “leaking, overflowing or bursting,” and pointing to standard exclusions for wear, tear, rust, corrosion and gradual deterioration.
Separately, Suncorp accepted a genuine storm-related water ingress claim on the same property, cash-settling $19,121 for building repairs and $3,641 for restoration and sanitisation, including an allowance for asbestos removal. Allegedly the homeowner argued this wasn’t sufficient, stating the insurer had originally indicated broader remediation was required and sought full replacement of the roof, ceiling linings, insulation and wiring, plus $5,000 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s Verdict
The Ombudsman agreed with Suncorp on the main issue: the pressure-wash damage fell outside the policy’s terms. “No insured event was established for the pressure cleaning claim,” AFCA ruled. “The policy only covers loss or damage caused by liquid leaking, overflowing or bursting from specified items.” A pre-purchase inspection report had already flagged corrosion causing holes in the roof and valley gutters, recommending repairs to keep it watertight, undermining the argument that the pressure-cleaning itself was the cause.
The homeowner hadn’t purchased optional accidental damage cover, and AFCA found no independent expert evidence to support his claim that further ceiling, asbestos or wiring work was needed. However, the ombudsman did award $2,000 compensation, not for the roof itself, but for “avoidable inconvenience and frustration” caused by delays in make-safe work and poor communication during the claims process.
Lessons From The Leak
This case highlights two things worth knowing about home policies:
- Escape of liquid cover is narrower than it sounds. It typically responds to water escaping from pipes, tanks or appliances, not any situation where water ends up somewhere it shouldn’t.
- Gradual wear and tear is almost never covered, and a pre-existing condition (like a corroded, aged roof) can undermine a claim even when a specific event triggers the damage.
- Accidental damage is usually an optional extra. If you want cover for damage caused by things like cleaning mishaps or DIY mistakes, it’s worth checking whether that’s included in your policy or needs to be added.
If you’re unsure what your current policy would or wouldn’t cover in a similar scenario, it’s worth a conversation before you need to find out the hard way.
For more information, contact us:
Phone: 08 6383 2000
Email: admin@lmlinsurancegroup.com
Source: Insurance News, 9 September 2026, reporting on an AFCA determination.
This blog contains general information only and is not advice specific to you.