Can you answer questions specifically relating to plant

Here's what I'm sending them in response to a phone call where HIA Insurance is basically saying we failed in our Duty of Disclosure by not updating the details fo the plant insured.Hi WayneFurther to our discussion last week I would like to add the following points on reflection of our phone conversation.HIA has been our insurance broker for at least 15 years (maybe more).  I have not felt the need to doubt the level of protection or service provided by HIA Insurance until the recent events, these events following our Claim form dated 10 July 2018 relating to our damaged excavator on one of our project sites back on the 14th of June 2018.We understand the role of HIA Insurance, as our appointed broker is to act as our advocate in settlement of any claim that may be made by us under our insurance policies.  We are the client, not the insurance underwriter.  The stance HIA Insurance has taken so far up to my call last week leads me to believe that HIA's view is that the underwriter is your client, not us the paying customer.  I have to say in all honesty I find the position we are now in appalling, the need for me to write this correspondence and put our case forward to have our claim paid equally so.I have reflected on events at this point and would note the following:HIA's position is that we have no valid claim because the description of the equipment covered in the 'Client Coverage Summary' notes the excavator as a '1999 HI Mini Excavator'.  We have failed in our Duty of Disclosure. The same Client Coverage Summary has a bold ** IMPORTANT NOTICE ** stating "this coverage summary has been prepared for general reference only.  Nothing contained herein prevails over the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the policy" The AON Privacy Notice (Privacy Notice HIAIS v 160301) and more importantly the attached document identified with "HIA Insurance Services / a joint venture with Aon", has in bold a red text "Important Notices".  Under this is Duty of Disclosure.  I point this out because we have repeatedly been referred back to the description of the machine on our Client Coverage Summary and told that because the description here is not correct, we have no cover for the damaged machine."You do not need to tell the insurer anything that:
reduces the risk that is insured"
"Non-disclosure
If you do not tell your insurer anything you are required to, the insurer may cancel your contract or reduce the amount that it is required to pay you if you make a claim, or both."Both of which are again documented in a letter to us dated 12th April 2018."Utmost Good Faith
Every contract of insurance is based on the principle of utmost good faith, requiring each party to act towards the other party in respect of any matter arising under the contract, with the utmost good faith.'My office admin staff (who have turned over in recent years) and their inability to both identify the difference between the old and new excavator, or plant that is located off-site and never viewed by them in person.  Does not in itself constitute a breach of the Duty of Disclosure, it simply means they were not experienced enough to correctly identify one machine from the other.  Nor were they experienced in insurance matters (nor was I for that matter, until now) to know that the description of an unregistered piece of equipment be so specific in nature when it is the only piece of equipment we own that falls into that category of machine.As far as their understanding went we still had one truck, we still had one excavator that required insurance cover.The IHI Excavator (listed as HI Mini Excavator, not even that description is completely correct on the Client Coverage Summary) had in fact been scrapped back in 2015 when the Bobcat Mini Excavator was purchased, we never had cover at any time for more than one machine.  It's a given the truck when purchased, being a registered piece of machinery being obtained new from a dealership will in itself trigger an update to our policy.  A certificate of currency is required to be provided prior to financiers releasing payment to a dealership.  The excavator (both of them) are not registered plant, there is no such registration and there is nothing to trigger an update on the policy other than a conversation taking place and the administration staff being knowledgeable enough to know to call.  The policy renewal process beings taking place in April, the machine in question was not purchased until July.  Logically, not knowing we were required to call and inform of the specific make year and model of the new excavator, the machines purchase given its nature would not have triggered an update till the next renewal 9 months later.  What person in an administrative position, not having ever coming into physical contact with the excavator question would remember to update details for a machine purchased 9 months earlier.

Here's the last of the letter...I still find it hard to believe that the purchase of a new excavator never came up in conversation with HIA when we were discussing the update of cover for the new truck coming onto the policy, and the old tipper being removed.  The new truck was in fact required urgently to collect the new excavator which was being sold for a substantially lower value than could be obtained in NSW from a seller in QLD.  The truck was delivered on the Friday and Shane drove directly to QLD over the weekend to collect the machine in the evening of the following Monday.  Even I have vague recollections of events and phone conversations at that time surrounding the truck, not even being the party arranging or managing such matters.  These conversations, what took place and what email records I have been able to find for that period are a moot point.  However, I will say it speaks directly of a relationship between ourselves and HIA Insurance.  That of a customer that has always conducted themselves in an honest manner to the best of their abilities and limited understandings of the intricacies of insurance matters.  It speaks of a relationship where we rely on a party who specialises in the insurance industry, who should be selecting insurance alliances with underwriters that provide a service for which they take premium payments for.HIA Insurance's role and the people they joint venture with should ensure we are covered in the event of unforeseen events.  Even if they come in the form of administrative failure to update a change of machine in a Client Coverage Summary, that is for general reference and anything listed in it cannot prevail over the terms and conditions of the policy.    Again, our unintentional failure to update this on the policy does validate the insurer to refused claim on that basis.To be clear, because of this mistake in the past 3 years we have continued to carry insurance for a machine with a value of $34,000, of which we only had a machine worth $15,000 as can be proven with a tax invoice.  We have in this time been paying in full premiums to the insurer for a machine which is more than double the value of the machine the insurer had the risk of insuring.  Nothing in our nature of work, the experience of the operator or conditions have changed from one machine to the other.  There was no further risk assumed by the insurer but rather a reduced risk, in the value of the equipment we actually required cover for.We are not, nor have we ever sought the claim to be paid in accordance with the value of a $34,000 machine.I have not begun to look into the conduct of an insurer that will readily take money on one hand for a machine then reject a claim for a simple and logical administrative mistake that can easily be explained and verified by the physical existence of the machine in question and proof of ownership.We are however taking the position that the machine of a lower value ($15,000), which falls directly into the category that the insurer has had reduced risk and that they can, in fact, pay out our claim to the value of lower value equal to the value of the machine in question.To refuse our claim on the basis of the machine not being described correctly on the Client Coverage Summary, does not show Utmost Good Faith on behalf of the insurer.  It demonstrates a complete disregard of a conduct that's in Good Faith and smacks of trying to use a loophole to refuse a legitimate claim.  I appreciate your efforts in taking this matter to the insurance underwriter and thank you in advance for taking this matter to them for consideration.