1. The Applicant has requested the Building Appeals Board (BAB) to make findings on the following issues:

(a) Whether the QC Policy including the endorsement/schedule complies with the Act.

(b) The manner and timing of the provision of the insurance documents.

(c) Whether the Respondent has proof of handing the Applicant the insurance documents on 19 June 2025.

(d) Whether there is proof of insurance between 14 March 2025 and 13 June 2025.

(e) Which insurance is responsible for "unauthorised" building works.

1. The Applicant also requests the following orders:

(a) If the BAB finds the insurance is inadequate, order the Respondent to obtain immediate and retrospective insurance covering all works and damage to date since she began works in March 2022 that complies with the Act.

(b) If the BAB finds that the Respondent has acted in contravention of the Act the BAB should order the Respondent to comply in future and levy any applicable fines.

1. The Respondent makes the following submissions (summarised):

(a) The QC Policy complies with all the requirements of s 93 of the Act because:

(i) It is issued by QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Unique Market.

(ii) It includes full contract works and public liability cover.

(iii) It has adequate limits of $360,000 for contract works and $5,000,000 for public liability.

(iv) It is specifically endorsed for protection work.

(b) The Applicant has raised matters outside the jurisdiction of the BAB. The only issues the BAB can deal with are whether the insurance complies with s 93 of the Act and whether the amount of cover is adequate.

(c) The documents provided reference protection work and are endorsed to cover public liability.

(d) The term "protective works" rather than "protection works" does not invalidate the policy.

(e) Although the Applicant's name and her property are not specified in the QC Policy, it has been established by the courts that an adjoining owner does not need to be named but must be able to claim as a third party beneficiary.

(f) The Applicant has disputed the amount of cover for underpinning; however, there is no underpinning required for this project.

(g) The Act requires insurance coverage but does not require specified monetary limits.

(h) Any period where there was no insurance is outside the jurisdiction of the BAB.

(i) Multiple insurers or underwriters is common industry practice. All the BAB has to decide is whether the insurance for the protection works complies with the Act.

(j) Insurer solvency and the absence of a guarantee are outside the jurisdiction of the BAB.

(k) Compliance with the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 is outside the jurisdiction of the BAB.

(l) That the Respondent has been referred to as a "principally registered builder" on some documents, rather than an "owner builder" does not affect the validity of the insurance for protection work.

1. The Respondent seeks a determination that the QC Policy is valid and compliant.

1. There are no submissions from the interested party.

1. Section 93 of the Building Act provides:

(1) Before any protection work is commenced in respect of an adjoining property, an owner must ensure that a contract of insurance is in force, in accordance with this section, against -

(a) damage by the proposed protection work to the adjoining property; and

(b) any liabilities likely to be incurred to adjoining occupiers and members of the public during the carrying out of the building work and for a period of 12 months after that building work is completed.

(2) The contract of insurance must be entered into with an insurer for an amount-

(a) agreed to by the owner and the adjoining owner; or

(c) in the event of a dispute, determined by the Building Appeals Board under Part 10.

(3) The owner must lodge a copy of the contract of insurance with the adjoining owner before the commencement of protection work.

(4) The owner must ensure the contract of insurance is renewed or extended as often as may be necessary during the carrying out of the building work and for 12 months after that work is completed.

1. I find that many of the issues raised, and orders sought by the Applicant fall outside the BAB's jurisdiction in a dispute referred pursuant to s 152 of the Act. These are as follows:

(a) That building work commenced without protection work insurance being agreed to.

(b) That building work commenced without protection work insurance being in place.

(c) The Respondent failing to agree to the supervision of protection work.

(d) The manner and timing of the provision of insurance documents by the Respondent.

(e) Any period for which there was no insurance cover in place.

(f) Compelling the Respondent to obtain retrospective insurance.

(g) Imposing fines on the Respondent.

(h) There being no guarantee of cover if the insurer becomes insolvent.

Does the QC Policy comply with s 93 of the Act?

1. According to the QC Policy Certificate of currency the period of insurance under the policy expires on 26 June 2026. The Applicant submits that page 2 of the QC Policy provides that the QC Policy is non-renewable and therefore not compliant with s 93(4) of the Act.
2. I note that the QC Policy document provides that the insured may apply for an extension to the period of insurance, although it does not guarantee that an extension will be given. It is therefore open to the Respondent to apply for an extension of cover.
3. I find that s 93(4) places a future obligation on the Respondent to extend the cover for protection work while building work is being carried out and for 12 months after the building work is completed. As of the date of this determination there is no breach of the Respondent's future obligation under s 93(4).

Limits of cover under the QC Policy (protection work)

1. The Applicant submits that the QC Policy endorsement for protection work is limited to the protection work specified in the form 7 and form 8 and does not cover any works not listed in those notices. For example, the QC Policy would not cover emergency protection work that may be required under s 89 of the Act.
2. It is helpful to summarise the protection work procedures and notices required by the Act:

a) Form 7 is a notice to an adjoining owner from the owner of land on which building works are proposed. It details the building works and protection works proposed. > > b) Form 8 is the response by the adjoining owner stating either that they agree to the proposed protection works, or they don't agree. Usually, if the adjoining owner disagrees with proposed protection works, they provide reasons with the form 8. > > c) Form 9 is the determination of the relevant building surveyor (RBS) as to the appropriateness of the proposed protection work, after considering the form 8, and any additional information.

3. Because s 93(1)(a) of the Act only refers to proposed protection work I find that the QC Policy is not deficient because it is limited to the form 7 and form 8 as it is the Form 7 on which it is required to contain all of the proposed protection work.
4. I note that the protection work endorsement also provides:

Further, no cover exists for loss or damage arising from the performance or implementation of the Protective Works, which loss or damage is caused as a result of a fault, defect, error or omission in design, plan or specification.

1. I find that the exclusions to the protection work cover as described in paragraph 23 above do not meet the requirements of s 93(1)(a) of the Act which requires that damage caused by the proposed protection work be covered.

Limits of cover under the QC Policy (public liability)

1. The Applicant submits that damage arising from asbestos, pollution and communicable diseases are excluded from cover, and that there is asbestos in a bathroom wall on the Adjoining Property, which if damaged could form part of a claim.
2. The operative words in the exclusion for asbestos are "liability resulting from". This would mean a liability incurred by the insured (the Respondent) resulting from, broadly speaking, the use or removal of asbestos by the Respondent.
3. However, s 93 of the Act requires that cover be provided for "any liabilities likely to be incurred", therefore any exclusions for liability that is "likely to be incurred" will make the policy non-compliant with s 93 of the Act.
4. I find that in an older home the use of asbestos at some stage of its life is possible and likewise the escape of pollution such as contaminated soil or water is also possible during building work. The exclusion for asbestos and pollution do not meet the requirements of s 93 of the Act, as they fall into the category of liabilities that are likely to be incurred.
5. In addition, the exclusions for faulty products and product recall do not meet the requirements of s 93 of the Act.
6. I therefore find that the QC Policy does not comply with the requirements of s 93 of the Act because the exclusions limit the cover to less than the coverage of "any liabilities likely to be incurred" as required by s 93(1)(b) of the Act.

1. The Applicant submits that her name and property are not listed in the endorsement to the QC Policy, and therefore it is not clear that she could make a claim directly to the insurer.
2. I find that as the endorsement to the policy refers to adjoining properties, then it is possible for the Applicant to make a claim, and that is sufficient cover in accordance with s 93 of the Act. I refer to the decision in Colonial Range Pty Ltd v CES- Queen (Vic) Pty Ltd[2] where the Court confirmed that s 93(1)(a) requires that the owner of damaged property can themselves directly claim under the insurance, but this did not mean the adjoining owner needs to be named personally in the policy schedule. In addition, I refer to the previous decision of the Building Appeals Board in case no 454307, which involved a dispute between the current parties and made findings on this issue. It is not necessary for the Applicant to be named in the endorsement or be named as an interested party.

1. The Applicant submits that the wording in the policy referring to protective works is not the wording in the Act. I find that, although it would be more aligned with the legislation to use the phrase "protection work" throughout the policy endorsement, the use of the words "protective works" does not make the policy non-compliant with s 93 of the Act.
2. The Applicant has queried the $10,000 amounts on the policy schedule for underpinning and personal injury. The Applicant has misread the policy. These amounts are the excess the Respondent must pay if there is a claim under the public liability section of the QC Policy.
3. The Applicant submits the QC Policy references the laws of Australia rather than the Building Act 1993. I find that this does not make the QC Policy non-compliant with s 93 of the Act.
4. The Applicant submits that the Respondent is referred to as a "principally registered builder" on page two of the policy endorsement schedule. As the Respondent is not a principally registered builder this could affect any claim under the QC Policy.
5. I note that the QC Policy is entitled "Quick Construct Owner Builder Construction Insurance Product", and as the certificate of currency and the QC Policy endorsement schedule all refer to "owner builder" it is more probable than not that the Respondent is covered as an owner builder, although the Respondent may wish to query that use of that wording in the endorsement with the insurer. I find that this does not make the QC Policy non-compliant with s 93 of the Act.
6. The Applicant submits the definition of existing structures in the QC Policy does not include her property, including the party wall. The term "existing structures" in the QC Policy is used in the Material Damage section of the QC Policy which covers "insured damage to the construction works during the period of the construction works". It is not relevant to the Public Liability or Protection Work sections of the QC Policy and endorsement. I find that this does not make the QC Policy non-compliant with s 93 of the Act.
7. Because the Applicant has not given reasons why she submits the QC Policy does not comply with s 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and I can see no obvious issues, I do not find that the QC Policy does not comply with s 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 nor am I tasked with making such a finding.

[1] Clause 17 of Schedule 3 to the Building Act 1993 provides: 'Unless the Building Appeals Board otherwise determines, a party to a proceeding before the Board must bear his, her or its own costs'.