New Queensland Supreme Court ruling on insurance jargon offers fresh hope to 2011 flood victims FAIRFIELD flood victim Ryan Labruniy hopes to recover some insurance money to fix his flood-damaged house after a new ruling by the Queensland Supreme Court regarding claims rejected by insurers after the 2011 Brisbane River flood. FAIRFIELD flood victim Ryan Labruniy will be among those taking advantage of a fresh ruling by the Queensland Supreme Court giving hope to many people who had claims rejected by insurers after the 2011 Brisbane River flood. The young carpenter intends to use the free Financial Ombudsman Service to pursue a claim against CGU for refusing any payout on tens of thousands of dollars in damage to his Hefferan St home. The home, the first he ever owned, was flooded 300mm above the floor boards by a backflow of water gushing from multiple storm drains on an adjacent street. A judge now has ruled inundation from such drains isn't the same as inundation from rivers and creeks - flood exclusions that were common in insurance policies at the time. "I think it is definitely worth him having a chat with our staff," a FOS spokeswoman said. Flood victims still have another three years to file claims. A Milton business, LMT Surgical Pty Ltd, which was flooded by water from two stormwater drains, prevailed in their lawsuit against Allianz for refusing a payout. Allianz attempted to argue the pipes were essentially a "canal" carrying river water but Justice David J Jackson saw it differently. "In my view, in the context of the flood exclusion, "canal" does not include the pipes," he ruled. The FOS said the decision does not alter the outcome of disputes already resolved, but would be taken into account in the future when assessing the individual facts of the case and hydrological evidence. "When deciding a dispute and whether a remedy should be applied, we also have regard of legal principles," the spokeswoman said. There are a number of court decisions concerning flood claims which FOS already has regard to and this will be another legal case for us to take into account. Mr Labruniy said the water that flooded his home followed a day of heavy local rain and came over Fairfield Rd and up stormwater drains - "not from the river," he said. It came out of the toilets and the bath too. He wasn't eligible for the Premier's relief fund because the home wasn't his residence at the time. His made a claim on his insurance policy, but found his $2000 annual premium earned him nothing but a rejection because flood was excluded. "It was frustrating," he said. It was just surreal when the flood happened. Afterwards, I was just very stressed and drained. Property values fell in the suburb and Mr Labruniy and his wife are out of pocket $30,000 even with him repairing the home. He wasn't sure whether his policy had the same flood definition as the disputed Allianz policy. But he believes the Supreme Court was dead right in its interpretation of pipe backflow. "When I think of canal, I think of the Gold Coast," he said. Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie had no comment about the decision but Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale, who has advocated insurance reforms after the disaster, said it was "great." "Infrastructure around a house should be there to protect the house," he said. Many flood victims didn't have the resources to file lawsuits against insurers, he said, urging companies to "do the right thing" and rethink claim rejections in light of the ruling. Insurance lawyers say the ruling sets a limited precedent and both the inundation circumstances and policy wording needed to be similar to be relevant.