An insurer was entitled to partially decline a bushfire claim from a beekeeping business after the industry ombudsman ruled the policy’s temporary removal benefit did not cover hives primarily located at apiaries. 

The case concerned beehives destroyed in the 2019/20 bushfires at third-party properties where the Kangaroo Island business operated apiaries. 

The business owner argued the hives were temporarily stored at the apiaries and should be covered under the policy’s temporary removal benefit.  

He also claimed the insurer’s agent had provided misleading advice about the cover required for his beekeeping operation. 

CGU had accepted a $15,000 claim under the policy’s general property section for 50 beehives but it declined cover for additional beehives under the temporary removal benefit. 

The policy covered other property or stock while temporarily stored at third party locations in Australia, and when in transit between the main premises and those locations. 

But AFCA ruled that the beehives were not being temporarily stored at the apiaries, but were primarily located there and being used as part of the business’s honey production activities. 

The ombudsman also found that the ordinary meaning of “temporarily storing” and the commercial purpose of the policy did not support the claim. 

The panel rejected the business owner’s alternative argument that the in-transit provision applied to hives being moved during the bushfire.  

Although some hives were in transit from apiaries to the business premises, the policy’s requirements for transit between premises where the property was temporarily stored were not met. 

The complainant also alleged that an insurer’s agent had misled him when arranging the policy. AFCA found the available call records supported the conclusion that a discussion had taken place about insuring beehives under the general property section, including quotes for 1000 and 500 hives. 

The owner ultimately selected cover for 50 hives, with a $15,000 sum insured. AFCA found no evidence that the agent had misled him into selecting that level of cover. 

Click here for the full ruling.