Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it is a shame that you took your $12K back; you definitely would have had a case with the IOS if you'd insisted the insurer pay out, based on the facts as I understand them and conveyed them to the IOS. I am so very sorry; of course I didn't want to make you feel worse.Wow, I am truly disappointed.
Ozperp so if I took this up with the OIS there is a good chance that I could have had the house repaired based on what you were advised?
I suspect you're correct now that the contract has been rescinded, TF, but you're not arguing that the insurer wasn't obliged to pay when tigerGT made the claim, surely? At that time, tigerGT had a binding contract to purchase.In the absence of an financial/pecuniary interest, the insurer won't pay.
This is because you don't have a financial interest in the property and/or haven't made a loss.
As you had no obligation to settle, you have made no loss so there is nothing for them to indemnify you for.
If it was a great deal, why don't you insist on the contract being fulfilled and claim on the insurance, like tigerGT wishes he had? I don't believe the vendor can just withdraw from their obligation to sell to you because of the fire. If they're offering to release you from your obligation to buy, you don't have to accept the offer.i am pretty annoyed coz it was a ripper one of the cheapest ever....
I suspect you're correct now that the contract has been rescinded, TF, but you're not arguing that the insurer wasn't obliged to pay when tigerGT made the claim, surely? At that time, tigerGT had a binding contract to purchase.
If you're suggesting that the fact that a gratuitous offer by the vendor to release you from the contract negates your insurance, are you able to provide cases or some other reference supporting this position?The fact that the contract could be rescinded means it wasn't binding.
Equally, to go ahead with the contract when one had the option not to would amount, IMHO, to not mitigating your loss and would also result in the claim being declined.
If you're suggesting that the fact that a gratuitous offer by the vendor to release you from the contract negates your insurance, are you able to provide cases or some other reference supporting this position?
I'm aware of the requirement to mitigate losses, but I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.
The position you outline seems a bit like saying that if your car is incinerated, but your neighbour offers to let you use their car whenever you like, then you haven't really suffered a loss (because you still have access to a car) so there's no need for the insurance to pay out.
It seems as if the vendor was at fault through ignorance. He did not realise that he has to notify the insurer that the property was vacant. He was the loser, big time. Your loss by comparison was very much smaller.
But this has been an education to me as well as to many in the forum perhaps. My practice and forum advice has been for the buyer to insure after exchange and before settlement. That may, as it turns out, not be the best advice.
OK, I'm seeing our point of difference. In the absence of the gratuitous offer from the vendor to rescind the contract, my understanding is that tigerGT had a binding obligation to purchase, which in most states is not negated by the fire.Is it actually any different if we had a non-binding agreement for me to buy it one day?
Hi geoffw,
DO NOT stop taking insurance immediately after exchange until you have had your contract checked and received advice from your legal eagle. (In writing) You said it above, it may be, but it also may not be.
TF, unless you have irrefutable proof of your advice here, (Yeah I know you are not giving advice, but some may act on your argument) and that it applies accross Australia, maybe you should investigate further and then either retract or quote your sources.