What a shocking portrayal of VMIA!!!
VMIA staff referring to claimants as “C**t owners”…And that’s just the start of it.
The material issue lies in that VMIA has aggressively fought claimants on legitimate claims to minimise quantum by obtaining quotes from “preferred builders”.
Whilst damning on the conduct this is no surprise to me. We have dealt with DBI claims through VMIA and I have found VMIA and their approach to claimants and lawyers representing claimants to be one of the worst insurer experiences I have ever had to deal with in over 25 years in insurance and law.
And that’s from a state run insurer!
Now, BPC is amalgamated with VMIA. There needs to be major efforts to address these failings come 2026, our homeowners and industry deserve better. The BPC has a lot of work to do to ensure standards improve significantly.
Finally, why are even the Victorian Ombudsman looking into this???? It’s insurance and building, by the way I am glad it occurred, but as a lawyer it should been VBA, but we all know what it was up too…
I suppose we should be congratulating the Ombudsman for stepping in even where it really is not in their lane and making these issues more publicly known.
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
A building professional who can write a report and a building professional who can defend one under cross-examination at VCAT are rarely the same person, and the gap between them is costing property owners claims.
If water from a neighbouring property has damaged your home or investment property in Victoria, section 16 of the Water Act 1989 gives you a direct path to recovery, but only if you can prove exactly where the flow came from and why it was unreasonable.
When a property damage claim moves toward recovery, the tradesperson who fixed the problem and the expert who can prove liability in court are rarely the same person.