Insurance is supposed to provide certainty in uncertain moments. Yet for many policyholders, that certainty disappears the moment a claim is made and the fine print comes into play.
Too often, insurance is sold with language that sounds broad and reassuring — “full cover,” “top cover,” “comprehensive cover” , "rental cover"— but the real protection is narrower than most people realise. The problem is not only what the policy covers. The problem is also what it excludes, and how that is explained at the point of sale.
For landlords, this matters even more. A rental property is not just a home; it is an asset exposed to risk from tenant damage, illegal activity, contamination, loss of rent, and repair costs after serious incidents. If a policy covers some of these risks but not others, that should be made crystal clear before the policy is bought, not after a claim is declined.
The public should not have to discover, too late, that meth contamination may be covered, but cannabis cultivation is not. That kind of distinction may make sense inside an insurance document, but to most customers it feels arbitrary and hard to reconcile with the way cover is marketed.
Even more troubling is when a loss is caused during police action, but the insurer says the damage was not caused by the tenants, and therefore falls outside the policy. To a landlord, that can feel surreal: the property is damaged in the course of responding to illegal conduct, yet the policy appears to retreat because the physical damage was not done directly by the tenant. That is exactly the sort of outcome that destroys trust.
This is not just about one claim or one landlord. It is about a broader transparency failure in financial services. If an insurer wants to exclude cannabis cultivation, police activity, or specific forms of contamination, that should be stated plainly, prominently, and in language ordinary people can understand.
Insurers should be expected to say, in bold terms, what is covered and what is not. Not hidden in a dense policy booklet. Not buried in exceptions. Not discovered only when the customer is already under pressure and looking for help.
A fair insurance market depends on informed choice. People cannot make informed choices if the product is sold as comprehensive while the real protection is full of exceptions.
Financial services, including insurance, should be held to higher standards of clarity and disclosure.
If insurance is to deserve public confidence, then the message must be simple: say clearly what is covered, and say even more clearly what is not.
