High risk with sub-standard products

High risk of sub standard products

In recent weeks the news media in Australia has reported many examples of inferior products being used in the building industry. The reports document the use of non-compliant products, such as cladding, cabling, wiring and lighting being installed in domestic and commercial buildings. Some suspect installations have resulted in serious damage with ongoing fire investigations but all products reviewed by authorities have been exposed as potential risks to either cause fire or act as an accelerant.

Trends in consumerism is to make a product cheaply for a shorter shelf life knowing it can be replaced cheaply in a ‘buy and replace’ purchase cycle. For building products however, we also want the assurance that our houses are long term secure in their construction and internal fit-out.

The cause of these building material risks can be traced back in some cases to inferior products being imported that are not meeting Australian Quality Control measures. An added problem is that designs are specified with materials which are then replaced with a replication of the intended original material or product. In a lean economy the temptation exists to look for cheaper alternatives to combat narrow profit margins.

This may also muddy the water with the rating of insurance premiums. Property risks are calculated on the materials of construction so it does have a bearing if the materials are combustible, mixed or of inferior construction. This must be assessed, declared accurately and obviously, if a fire risk is increased, it must be addressed.

Australia’s reliance on offshore manufacturing has caused the transfer of responsibility to manufacturers with various importers and distributors proving difficult to supervise and monitor to appropriate standards.
The manufacturer / importer has a responsibility not only as a measure
to sustain a reputable business, but also as a community responsibility to put stringent measures in place which would prevent property loss and worst case scenarios.

Industry and Australian Standards exist and have individual rating codes for applicable products. The importer must have a testing protocol and recall procedure that can be demonstrated. Associations such as Master Builders, Master Electricians, Housing Industry Association etc., also provide a forum for the members and the public to highlight issues and all are proactive in raising concerns and bringing problem cases to light.

The risk exposure would also be assisted by having adequate Product Recall insurance to cover incurred costs which are not limited to the product, but may also include advertising, recall notifications, repairs, loss of profits and rehabilitation.

Across the Claims Desk

Offbeat, unusual claims that cross insurers desk‘s everyday!

SPLASH OF PAINT

Unrestrained items in the back of a vehicle can cause more damage than a collision. The claimant driver of a car had a minor collision resulting in tins of paint on the back seat moving freely around the inside of the vehicle, flipping their lids and coating the upholstery with an attractive but unwanted colour scheme. The cost of replacement of the interior resulted in the car being uneconomical to repair.

Outcome: Car written off. Claim accepted.

PLASTERED!

Dinner at home was an interesting occasion for one family when parts of the ceiling fell in on them. It seems that the glue holding the plasterboard ceilings in their older home did not have a lifetime serviceability.

When their house was built, ceilings were held in place by both screws and glue and if there was a shortage of screws, the ceiling fixing would rely on the glue, which can deteriorate over time.

Generally, unless there has been a contributing factor e.g. water ingress, these repairs tend to be excluded under ‘wear and tear’ gradual deterioration exclusions.

Outcome: Claim rejected.

UNBROKEN… BUT REPLACED ANYWAY

With the recent replacement of many hail damaged roofs in the Brisbane area, it is interesting to note that whilst many solar panels survived the impact of the hail, some had to be replaced anyway because were not fire rated.

Outcome: Claim accepted.