Hollard fined $2 million for serious insurance claim delay
AI Analysis
The Federal Court ordered Hollard Insurance Partners Limited to pay a $2 million civil penalty for breaching section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), after delays, poor communication and inadequate escalation caused a storm-damaged Victorian home to deteriorate into an uninhabitable total loss. The decision is the first civil penalty imposed on an insurer for breaching the statutory duty of utmost good faith and, consistent with independent industry reporting, activates a significant enforcement warning for insurers whose claims processes allow prolonged inaction, delayed accommodation or unsupported decisions.
Key dates
- 2021-10-31
- The insured family lodged the storm-related home insurance claim after roof damage in October 2021.
- 2022-08-01
- A structural engineering assessment occurred approximately eight months after the need for one was identified; the source gives August 2022 but not an exact day.
- 2022-12-01
- After the family complained to Hollard in late 2022, Hollard offered a $1,000 goodwill payment, which was rejected; the source gives only the month and year.
- 2023-04-01
- Hollard made its final claim decision and rejected the claim approximately 15 months after initially accepting it; the source gives April 2023 but not an exact day.
- 2025-04-01
- ASIC commenced Federal Court proceedings alleging breaches of section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth); the source gives April 2025 but not an exact day.
- 2026-10-09
- The Federal Court ordered Hollard to pay a $2 million civil penalty for breach of the duty of utmost good faith.
Suggested considerations
- Compliance teams may wish to review open and recently closed home and property claims for extended periods of inactivity, delayed expert assessments, repeated reassignment, late temporary accommodation and decisions inconsistent with available expert evidence.
- Insurers should consider testing whether claims systems identify deterioration risks, vulnerable customers, habitability issues and requests for emergency accommodation, and whether those matters trigger timely management escalation.
- Firms should consider documenting clear ownership, next actions, decision dates and customer communications throughout the claim, including reasons for any investigation or decision delay.
- Insurers may wish to assess whether rejection decisions are supported by appropriate technical evidence and whether new evidence is properly reconciled with earlier inspections or admissions of cover.
- Claims governance functions should consider reviewing outsourced-provider service levels, escalation controls and management information for aging claims, complaint recurrence, temporary accommodation delays and claims exceeding internal handling targets.
- Legal and compliance teams may wish to map controls against Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), section 13(2A), and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), section 912A(1)(a), while considering ASIC's 2024 claims-handling letter, 2025 review findings and 2026 enforcement priority.
What changed
The judgment establishes a binding enforcement precedent that an insurer may incur a civil penalty under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) where claims handling falls materially below the duty of utmost good faith. It does not introduce a new statutory claims-handling rule or compliance deadline, but confirms that insurers must handle claims fairly, communicate clearly, progress investigations and decisions without unnecessary delay, and respond appropriately when delay risks further insured loss. The outcome reinforces the existing obligation applying to Australian financial services licensees providing claims-handling and settling services to do so efficiently, honestly and fairly under section 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), alongside the Insurance
Compliance impact
The penalty demonstrates that prolonged claim inactivity, delayed temporary accommodation, weak communication and inadequate technical escalation can produce substantial regulatory and consumer-outcome consequences even where the insurer ultimately pays a significant settlement. The conduct also creates exposure beyond the individual claim, including civil penalties, legal costs, remediation expec
Who is affected
Related regulations
References
- [1] abc.net.au third-party
- [2] insurancenews.com.au third-party
- [3] asic.gov.au
- [4] insurancebusinessmag.com third-party
- [5] law360.com third-party
- [6] asic.gov.au
- [7] insurancebusinessmag.com third-party
- [8] insurancebusinessmag.com third-party
- [9] insurancebusinessmag.com third-party
- [10] beinsure.com third-party
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ASIC source before acting. Full disclaimer.
What the ASIC said
Hollard fined $2 million for serious insurance claim delay
Published by ASIC . Read the full notice at the source for the authoritative text.