Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

A contentious insurance claim has ended unfavourably for a motor policyholder after her husband mistakenly poured diesel exhaust fluid into her car's fuel tank.

Although the policyholder initially received assurances from a Suncorp representative that the use of AdBlue fluid wouldn't be considered improper fuelling - supposedly an excluded scenario under her policy - the claim was later denied.

This decision has sparked debate around policy definitions and customer service communication.

The policyholder argued that according to the product disclosure statement (PDS), only "incorrect fuel usage" was excluded, and as AdBlue is technically not a fuel, her claim should be valid. Additional grievances arose after alleging the insurer’s tow service inflicted further damage to her car, necessitating a new steering rack and wheel realignment.

Suncorp acknowledged the issue with its initial claim rejection, where the decision was based solely on the original PDS. However, the insurer pointed to a supplementary product disclosure statement (SPDS), which explicitly excludes coverage for damage resulting from using fluids not recommended by the vehicle's manufacturer. This key differentiation was reportedly communicated to the policyholder during her policy renewal.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) sided with Suncorp, determining that the insurer did not mislead the customer about her claim status. While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident. Additionally, AFCA found limited evidence to support the policyholder's accusations regarding damage caused by the towing service, reinforcing Suncorp's account of a winched, non-dragged vehicle recovery.

Despite these rulings, AFCA ordered Suncorp to compensate the policyholder $3000 for delay-induced inconveniences during the claim process, which left her without her vehicle for an extended period, citing the resulting undue stress and hassle.

This case highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding of policy amendments, emphasizing the role supplemental documents play during insurance assessments. Consumers are reminded to review documentation thoroughly during renewals to grasp the full scope of their insurance protections and exclusions.

Published:Wednesday, 16th Apr 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Beauty Therapist Successfully Challenges Insurer Over Flood Damage Claim

23 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori

In a significant ruling, a beauty therapist has achieved partial coverage for damages after contesting her insurer's application of a flood exclusion clause. This case underscores the complexities beauticians face when navigating insurance claims related to water damage. - read more

ASIC Intensifies Oversight on Insurance Pricing and Claims Handling

23 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has unveiled new enforcement priorities for the upcoming year, placing a spotlight on insurance pricing, claims handling, and complaints processes. This move aims to enhance consumer protection and ensure fair practices within the insurance industry. - read more

Melbourne Hairdresser Successfully Claims Business Interruption Due to Pandemic

23 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori

A Melbourne-based hairdressing salon has won a business interruption (BI) insurance dispute after demonstrating that a local COVID-19 outbreak led to a significant decline in revenue, even before government-imposed lockdowns. - read more