Raso v NRMA Insurance Ltd T/As NRMA Home Insurance

In *Raso v NRMA Insurance Ltd T/As NRMA Home Insurance*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between a policyholder, Mr. Raso, and his insurer, NRMA Insurance Ltd, concerning a claim made under a home building insurance policy. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether the damage sustained to Mr. Raso's property was covered by the policy.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the damage to the insured property was caused by a "gradual deterioration" or "wear and tear," which were excluded perils under the policy, or by a sudden and identifiable event that would otherwise be covered. A key issue was the interpretation of the policy wording and the application of the exclusion clauses to the specific circumstances of the damage.

The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the nature and timing of the damage. It applied principles of insurance law concerning the construction of policy terms, particularly the contra proferentem rule where ambiguity exists, and the onus of proof in establishing whether an exclusion clause applies. The Court found that the damage was not the result of a gradual process but rather a consequence of a specific event, thereby falling within the scope of cover.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Raso's appeal, finding that the insurer was liable to indemnify him under the policy for the damage sustained to his property.