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 While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident.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

Allianz Australia Penalised for Misleading Travel Insurance Information

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has imposed fines totaling $16.8 million on Allianz Australia Insurance and its subsidiary, AWP Australia, for disseminating misleading information about their travel insurance products between 2016 and 2018. This decision underscores the critical importance of transparency and accuracy in the insurance sector. - read more

Surge in Medical Claims Among Australian Travellers Highlights Importance of Comprehensive Insurance

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

In 2024, medical incidents emerged as the leading cause of travel insurance claims among Australian travellers, accounting for more than 40% of all claims handled by nib Travel. This trend underscores the critical importance of securing comprehensive travel insurance to mitigate the financial risks associated with medical emergencies abroad. - read more

Seafood Business Wins Insurance Dispute Over Storm-Induced Power Outage

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent ruling by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has significant implications for businesses seeking insurance compensation for losses due to power outages caused by natural disasters. In this case, a seafood distribution company experienced substantial stock losses when a storm-induced power outage left its refrigeration systems inoperable for a week. The insurer initially denied the claim, citing a flood exclusion clause. - read more

Insurance Council Advocates for Liability Law Overhaul to Curb Rising Premiums

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has called for urgent reforms to civil liability laws to address the escalating costs of liability insurance premiums affecting businesses nationwide. In a recently released white paper, the ICA highlights the need to review state-based civil liability laws that have remained unchanged for nearly 25 years. The report identifies key areas requiring attention, including psychological injuries, worker-to-worker claims, and leisure and recreational risks. - read more