Buying an off-the-plan property in NSW can be an exciting investment, but it also comes with certain risks, particularly when it comes to insurance coverage. Off-the-plan buyers may assume that their property is fully protected, but insurance issues can arise during construction, settlement, and even after moving in. Whether it’s a lack of coverage for construction delays, incomplete insurance policies, or difficulties in securing home and contents insurance after settlement, these problems can leave buyers exposed to significant financial losses.
Many buyers don’t realize that traditional insurance products may not cover certain risks associated with off-the-plan purchases. For example, delays in construction, defects, or incomplete works may not be covered by standard insurance policies. Additionally, new owners often discover that securing adequate home insurance for a brand-new property can be more complicated than expected, with higher premiums or exclusions related to the property’s location, building materials, or environmental risks.
In this article, we’ll explore the common insurance problems that can affect off-the-plan buyers in NSW, present a real court case where insurance issues led to costly consequences, and provide strategies to mitigate these risks and ensure adequate coverage.
1. Incomplete Coverage During Construction
Off-the-plan buyers often assume that the developer’s insurance will cover all potential issues during construction. However, many developers’ policies do not provide coverage for delays, defects, or damage that occurs before settlement. If a construction delay occurs, buyers may be left without recourse, facing extra costs for alternative accommodation or bridging loans until the property is completed.
2. Difficulty Securing Home Insurance After Settlement
Once construction is complete and the property is handed over, buyers may face challenges in securing home and contents insurance. New buildings, particularly those in high-risk areas (such as flood or bushfire zones), may come with higher premiums or exclusions, leaving buyers without adequate protection against natural disasters or other risks.
3. Strata Insurance Gaps
For buyers purchasing apartments in strata-titled developments, the building’s insurance is typically managed by the owners’ corporation. However, strata insurance often covers only the building itself, not individual fixtures, fittings, or personal property. Buyers may not be fully aware of this distinction, leading to gaps in coverage if an incident occurs.
4. Delayed or Denied Insurance Claims
New properties are sometimes subject to claims being denied or delayed due to disputes over construction defects or unclear coverage terms. For example, if a plumbing or electrical issue arises shortly after settlement, insurers may deny claims if they believe the issue stems from poor workmanship rather than an insurable event.
5. Increased Premiums Due to Construction Materials or Location
Some newly built properties may be constructed with materials that insurers deem to be high risk, such as combustible cladding or poorly rated insulation. Additionally, properties in flood-prone or bushfire-prone areas may come with significantly higher premiums, making ongoing insurance costs a financial burden for buyers.
Insurance problems can lead to a range of financial and legal consequences for off-the-plan buyers:
Introduction
In Stewart v XYZ Developments [2021] NSWSC 847, a group of buyers in a newly built apartment complex in Sydney experienced significant financial losses due to insurance problems. The case highlights the challenges that off-the-plan buyers can face when insurance coverage is inadequate or unavailable.
Executor’s Mismanagement
The buyers had purchased luxury apartments in a high-rise development that was marketed as being located in a prime location with stunning views. However, shortly after settlement, several buyers began experiencing issues with the building’s plumbing and electrical systems. Additionally, some units were damaged by water leaks due to poor drainage on the roof.
When the buyers attempted to file insurance claims for the damage, they were shocked to discover that their claims were denied. The insurer argued that the damage was due to construction defects, which were not covered under the standard home and contents insurance policy. Furthermore, the strata insurance for the building only covered structural damage, not internal fixtures or fittings. The buyers were left to cover the cost of repairs out of their own pockets.
Frustrated by the lack of insurance coverage, the buyers approached the developer, hoping for assistance with the repair costs. However, the developer denied responsibility, claiming that the building had passed all necessary inspections and that any issues were the result of wear and tear, not construction defects.
Faced with significant repair bills and ongoing issues with the building’s plumbing and electrical systems, the buyers decided to take legal action against both the developer and the insurer. The financial and emotional strain was overwhelming for many buyers, some of whom had invested their life savings into the property.
The buyers filed a class action against the developer and the insurer, alleging that they had been misled about the quality of the construction and the extent of the insurance coverage. They argued that the developer had failed to disclose key issues with the building’s plumbing and electrical systems and that the insurer had wrongfully denied their claims.
The court reviewed the evidence, including building inspection reports and expert testimony from insurance professionals. The judge found that the developer had breached its duty of care by failing to address known construction defects before settlement. The insurer was also found to have acted in bad faith by denying claims without conducting a thorough investigation.
The court awarded compensation totaling $2.8 million to the buyers, which was divided based on the severity of the damage to their units. However, the compensation did not fully cover the cost of repairs, particularly for those who had experienced extensive water damage. Additionally, the buyers faced ongoing legal costs and the emotional toll of dealing with both the developer and the insurer.
Some buyers were forced to take out loans to cover the cost of repairs, while others had to sell their apartments at a loss due to the unresolved issues with the building. The case also highlighted the gaps in insurance coverage that can arise in off-the-plan purchases, leaving buyers vulnerable to financial risk.
Government Resources
Non-Profit Organisations