Read about our unconscionable treatment at the hands of our insurer, who's refusing to properly repair our house, two years after the 2011 Brisbane floods.

1. Two years on…
It‟s January 2013, two years after we were flooded in
the Brisbane floods of January 2011. Suncorp still
refuse to honour the terms of our insurance
policy, prolonging our homelessness and emotional
trauma.

2. Background
May 2009 First flood – rapt with Suncorp‟s six-month repair
job on our home, raved at every opportunity
, moved back home Nov 2009
Jan 2011 After 14 months back home, the big flood hit, this
time much deeper, and for much longer
Jan 2013 We‟ve been out of our home for 30 of the last 44
months
It’s been an extremely upsetting upheaval, and we
just want it to end, and go back to “normal life”.

3. Suncorp denies liability for structural damage
Suncorp accepts that we have a valid claim, and has paid
us cash to cover cosmetic works
(plaster, electrics, cabinetry, paint, etc.), but continues to
deny responsibility for the much-more-significant (and
expensive) structural works, despite overwhelming
evidence that it was caused by the flood.
We will ultimately win at the Ombudsman, but it‟s been two
years and we need Suncorp to fix their error now rather
than waiting to be ordered to do the right thing.

4. The flood
Our upper floor
Front door, from
the street, near
peak height

5. The return

6. The process
We‟ve now had five structural engineering firms (two paid
by Suncorp, three by us) inspect the property. Four have
written extensive reports (one wrote only a two-page letter).
All agree that there are significant structural issues.
Suncorp accept this, but attempt to attribute the
structural damage to anything other than the most
obvious culprit: the flood.

7. So what has happened?
The consensus of engineering evidence is that the action of
the flood water on the fill underneath our slab has caused
both hogging – where the slab is pushed upwards by
swollen soil – and cupping, where the slab sinks due to the
soil re-settling in a more condensed configuration.

8. How do we know?
• Two contour maps were taken of our slab, one by one of
Suncorp‟s engineers and one by one of ours, and they were
remarkably consistent
• The relevant Australian Standard (AS2870) specifies that
height deviations in excess of 1 in 150 are outside the
serviceability requirements, i.e. the slab is unserviceable and
doesn‟t meet Australian Building Code
• This means that across a horizontal distance of 1.5m
(150cm), the height deviation must not exceed 1cm
• Therefore, on a plan showing contour lines every 1cm of height
difference, the lines should be at least 1.5m apart, if the slab is
to be considered serviceable, and you should be able to move
a 1.5m diameter circle cleanly between all the contour lines

9. Our slab
This is a 1.5m
diameter
circle, to scale
with the
diagram at
right.
Everywhere that you can‟t fit this
circle between adjacent lines –
marked by pink - represents a
section of the slab that is
unserviceable.

10. Was the slab damaged prior to the flood?
This is one of Suncorp‟s reasons why they shouldn‟t be responsible for the
damage, to which we have three solid responses:
1. Suncorp repaired our home over a six-month period in 2009, including
securing some crumbling slab edges, and laying large-format tiles in
several rooms. At no point were any issues raised with the condition
of the slab. As it is now outside tolerance by several orders of
magnitude, and has gradients visible to the naked eye, it isn‟t credible
that none of Suncorp‟s contractors would have noticed this in 2009.
2. After these repairs, as per our policy, Suncorp handed back the house
to us with the ground floor in “good as new” condition in November
2009, 14 months prior to this flood.
3. We are fortunate to have photographic evidence of the state of the
slab in 2009, as you‟re about to see. 

11. This is to show that we‟re talking about the same sections of concrete. On the
next page is a close-up of the concrete itself, from these photos.

12. Concrete before and after
Have a close look. The right-hand section of slab has several prominent
cracks. Can you see any in the left-hand picture? No, apparently only
Suncorp‟s engineer can see cracks in the left-hand picture. The crack itself is
not necessarily of structural significance, but it shows that the condition of the
slab in 2011 is not the same as it was in 2009.

13. The footings have moved
The footings have moved as a result of the flood, resulting in
several vertical cracks in the northern brick wall as per this
photograph, crossing multiple brick courses.
This indicates that the footings, as well as the slab, have
been moved by the soil saturation, and the stress was
sufficient to cause bricks to crack in half vertically.
These cracks exist in several places along the wall, some
more than a metre high.
Suncorp is trying to suggest that this is due to very old
movements, perhaps the „74 floods. But we applied exterior
render to the brickwork in 2003, and there are precisely
corresponding cracks in the render outside, so it is clearly
evidenced that the movement has happened no earlier than
2003. Further, there were no render cracks either noted or
repaired in 2009.

14. Quotes from engineering reports
“running a 2000mm builders spirit level over the slabs centroids showed
alarming „out of level‟ readings. That coupled with the obvious radiating cracking
from those centre points also indicated a major occurrence”
“Extremely large changes in levels have taken place towards the centre of the
building in particular … ongoing movement should be expected in the future”
“significant movement has occurred around the dwelling as a result of the 2011
floods”
“a combination of the above mechanisms [heaving and sinking] has taken place
at the property to result in the extreme level differences recorded.”
“the flood event had a significant influence on footing system movement across
the building and as the founding soil moisture conditions are continuing to
change and dry, ongoing movement is taking place.”

15. Worse: bad faith by Suncorp
Shrinkage (latent) vs stress cracks
Suncorp‟s position in their submission to the Ombudsman is that the slab cracks are old "latent cracks"
– cracks formed during concrete drying 40+ years ago. They even suggest that one of our engineers
agrees with them on this point. This is an extract from Suncorp’s submission:
:
Here is an extract from the source engineering report (discussing possible types of cracks present):
In other words, the engineer was making precisely the opposite point; that the cracks had obviously
only occurred recently and thus could not be shrinkage cracks. Omitting the engineer‟s second
sentence beginning with “However” is an act of deception and evidence of bad faith.

16. Should we just live with it?
We asked the three engineers that we commissioned: “Please, tell us honestly if we are
making a big deal out of nothing. If we should just drop this and accept a compromise
repair, tell us now, so that we can stop wasting time and emotional energy, and get back
home. This is from one of the email responses (though all were the same in substance):
“I firmly believe that if you do nothing but simply „fill the cracks and re render over the
walls etc.‟ not only will movement persist but cracks will re appear to cause an
unacceptable level of defects to a buyer and home owner (too many cracks, gaps
etc…) that will severely devalue your property and unless you heavily patch it before a
sale and simply pass the buck to the poor buyer (which is clearly not
acceptable, particularly since items such as timber rot will eventually lead to
collapse) you will lose a lot of money. The nuance here it seems is that unless the
cracks/defects are not about to immediately cause the house to collapse (by being
structurally unsound), then [engineering firm X] and Suncorp appear willing to just
patch it up and move on?? This is inappropriate and unacceptable.”

17. Why not just repair?
We have no option but to continue this fight.
1. The slab can‟t be certified. We‟d be allowed to live in it ourselves solely
because the Queensland Government has exempted repaired flooded homes
from having to be re-certified, but the inability to obtain certification would
drastically affect re-sale price, and if ever we wanted to renovate in future, we‟d
be unable to get a certification on the renovation.
2. The amount of money Suncorp believe covers repair is insufficient to repair in
any case, because they based it on a cut-price non-fixed quote from a builder
who are unwilling to do the repairs for us on the basis of that quote.
3. No builder, including the one whose quote Suncorp wants to use as the basis
for pay-out, is willing to perform the repairs because they know the likelihood is
that the work will extensively crack, and they bear ongoing liability for repairs
under Queensland‟s Home Warranty Scheme (7 years).

18. The way forward?
We have a case active before the Financial Ombudsman Service, who advise they‟ll resolve the
matter by April 2013. Even if that timeline is achieved, this would still result in it taking more than three
years to be back in our home. That’s too long by far!
We are highly confident of an eventual win with the Ombudsman. We have ample engineering
evidence, but we want Suncorp to fix it now rather than making us wait even longer for an order from
the Ombudsman. Now that all the evidence is in, and is overwhelming, they should be tripping over
themselves to rectify their error and apologise for the delay. But instead, they are trying to prolong
things even more in the hope that our will to continue will give out before the process completes, and
that‟s why we want public pressure: to get them to honour our policy now.
We were planning a protest on the second anniversary of the floods, Friday the 11th of January,
but due to both the difficulty of obtaining a permit, and vicious harassment, in the interests of
our own safety we have reluctantly decided to cancel this protest.
We nonetheless look forward to having our matter settled soon, and hopefully helping other insurance
customers by our example.

19. Thanks for reading
Our fight is almost over. Once our case is resolved, and I‟ve
emotionally regrouped from the nastiness directed towards
us over this dispute, I‟ll be doing all I can to help other
insurance customers who haven‟t been so fortunate.
Tracey Bryan