Viv* and Desmond* kept their home in pristine condition. However, one afternoon Viv’s full cup of Nespresso coffee “flew” off the table, staining a metre square of the dining room carpet. The insurer agreed to replace the carpet in the dining and living room, as the area was open plan, and offered $6,066.01 less the policy excess of $500.
But Viv also wanted the lounge carpet replaced to match. The insurer said no. The lounge carpet wasn’t damaged, and the policy had a “loss of match exclusion”, meaning there was no cover if items weren’t able to be matched. The insurer offered to waive the excess, and cash settle the claim for $6,066.01.
Viv and Desmond declined the offer. They said the insurer should replace most of the carpet in the house because it was open plan, and because the policy wording was unclear.
The IFSO Scheme found the loss of match exclusion clearly applied to carpet in separate rooms. The dining and living rooms were separated from the rest of the house, including the lounge, by doors. The insurer was entitled to rely on the exclusion to limit the claim.
Complaint not upheld.
*Names have been changed.