Case Note: Victorian Building Authority v Fall-Armytage [2026] VSCA 32

Important Case Update: Domestic Building Insurance – Timing of Loss Clarified

This case note is particularly relevant for builders, developers, homeowners and purchasers of residential property. The decision effects when insurance will respond to defective building work any may significantly impact your ability to recover rectification costs, especially if you are buying or selling a property some years after construction.

The issue in practical terms

Defective building work often does not become apparent until years after completion. A common assumption, particularly among purchasers, is that if the defect occurred during construction, insurance will respond.

This decision makes it clear that this assumption is not always correct.

Instead, the key questions is: when was the loss actually suffered? If that occurs outside the policy period, there may be no cover at all.

Summary

The Victorian Court of Appeal has confirmed that domestic building insurance policies respond to when loss or damage is suffered, not when a defect arises. The decision significantly limits claims by subsequent purchasers where defects only become apparent after the policy period has expired. The Court also confirmed that successors in title must prove their own loss and cannot recover loss suffered by prior owners.

Background

The decision in Victorian Building Authority v Fall-Armytage [2026] VSCA 32 concerns the interpretation of a domestic building insurance policy issued under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (the Building Act).

The respondent purchased a residential property several years after construction had been completed. After taking ownership, he identified a number of defects, including issues with waterproofing and other non-structural elements.

When the builder became insolvent, the respondent sought to rely on the domestic building insurance policy to recover the cost of rectification.

The dispute centred on whether the policy responded based:

• When the defects occurred; or
• When the loss or damage was suffered.

Decision at First Instance

At trial, the County Court adopted a broader interpretation of the policy. It held that cover was available because the relevant defects had occurred during the policy period, even though the respondent’s loss arose later.

On that approach, the policy effectively extended to defects arising during construction, regardless of whether the resulting lass was suffered.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

In a detailed analysis of the policy wording, the Court held that the relevant time limitation provisions apply to when loss or damage is suffered, not when the defect first occurs.  The Court emphasised that the policy is concerned with indemnifying loss, and the timing of that loss is central to determining whether cover is triggered.

As the respondent only suffered loss after acquiring the property outside the relevant policy period, his claim was not covered.

Why this matters for clients (the real impact)

This decision exposes several practical pain points:

1. Subsequent purchasers may have no cover : If you purchase a property outside the policy period, you may have no insurance protection, even for defects that clearly originated during construction.
2. Latent defects are a real risk : Many building issues (particularly waterproofing and structural movement) only become apparent years later. By that time, insurance cover may have expired.
3. Builder insolvency creates a gap : Domestic building insurance is often relied upon as a “last resort” where a builder is insolvent. This decision narrows that safety net.
4. Commercial assumptions may be wrong : Many parties assume insurance “follows the defect”. The Court has confirmed that, in reality, it follows the timing of loss.

Successors in Title and Statutory Warranties

The respondent also argued that, as a subsequent owner, he could rely on statutory warranties under section 8 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic), with the benefit of s 9 allowing those warranties to “run with the land”.

The Court rejected this argument as a basis for recovery under the policy.

While section 9 permits a subsequent owner to bring proceedings for breach of statutory warranties as if they were a party to the original contract, it does not transfer losses suffered by a previous owner. A subsequent purchaser must establish their own loss, which may differ depending on matters such as the purchase price and any knowledge of defects at the time of acquisition.

In practice, this means:

• If defects were reflected in a reduced purchase price, recovery may be limited or unavailable;
• If defects were unknown and the property was purchased at full value, a claim may still be viable, but must be carefully quantified.

What clients should do (risk management and fixes)

For property purchasers:

• Undertake thorough pre-purchase inspections, particularly for properties more than 2-6 years old.
• Consider contractual protections (warranties, indemnities, price adjustments).
• Do not assume insurance will respond.

For owners discovering defects:

• Act quickly to identify when loss is said to arise.
• Obtain expert evidence on timing and causation.
• Consider alternative recovery pathways (builder, consultants, vendors).

For builders and developers:

• Be aware that disputes may increasingly focus on timing of loss, not just defective work.
• Ensure contractual and insurance arrangements are properly aligned with risk exposure.

How we can assist

This decision reinforces that domestic building disputes are often won or lost on technical issues of timing, causation and policy construction.

Our residential building lawyers assist clients by:

• Advising on insurance coverage and recovery strategies.
• Assessing viability of claims for subsequent purchasers.
• Navigating disputes involving builder insolvency and defective work.
• Structuring transactions to manage and allocate risk upfront.

If you are dealing with defective building work, whether as an owner, purchaser or a builder, it is important to obtain early advice to understand where you stand.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces a confined and commercially orthodox interpretation of domestic building insurance policies. It confirms that such policies are not intended to provide open-ended protection tied to the existence of defects, but rather a time-limited indemnity responding to loss suffered within defined periods.

For practitioners, the case highlights the importance of careful attention to both policy wording and the timing of loss when advising on coverage and potential recovery pathways.

About The Author - Thomas Cunningham

Tom is an Associate in the disputes and litigation practice group at PCL Lawyers. With a broad practice in general commercial litigation, Tom has represented corporations, organisations and...