logo PII
SHARE

Share this news item!

Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up

Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up

Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up?w=400

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 While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident.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

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Rate this article

0 Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Insurance News

QLS Approves 15% Reduction in Professional Indemnity Insurance Levies for 2026/27
QLS Approves 15% Reduction in Professional Indemnity Insurance Levies for 2026/27
24 May 2026: Paige Estritori
The Queensland Law Society (QLS) has announced a significant 15% reduction in professional indemnity (PI) insurance levies for the 2026/27 period. This decision, approved by the QLS Council in April 2026, is set to benefit legal practitioners across Queensland by lowering their insurance premiums. - read more
Insurance Council of Australia Advocates for Structural Reforms to CSLR
Insurance Council of Australia Advocates for Structural Reforms to CSLR
24 May 2026: Paige Estritori
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has called for structural reforms to the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) to address growing funding pressures and enhance consumer protection. This appeal comes in response to a Treasury consultation paper examining the role of professional indemnity insurance in compensation claims. - read more
Markel Introduces Tailored Professional Indemnity Insurance Solutions in Australia
Markel Introduces Tailored Professional Indemnity Insurance Solutions in Australia
24 May 2026: Paige Estritori
Markel, the insurance operation within Markel Group Inc., has announced the launch of professional indemnity (PI) insurance solutions in Australia, featuring localised wordings to service a broad range of professions. This strategic move aims to address the growing demand for professional and financial risks (PFR) insurance solutions in the Australian market. - read more
Federal Court Denies Allianz's Attempt to Limit Sexual Misconduct Coverage
Federal Court Denies Allianz's Attempt to Limit Sexual Misconduct Coverage
16 May 2026: Paige Estritori
In a landmark decision on April 28, 2026, the Federal Court dismissed Allianz Australia's bid to impose a cap on sexual misconduct coverage under the Uniting Church's professional indemnity policy. This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on upholding policy terms as executed, rather than as later interpreted by insurers. - read more
Markel Unveils Customised Professional Indemnity Insurance for Australian Market
Markel Unveils Customised Professional Indemnity Insurance for Australian Market
16 May 2026: Paige Estritori
Markel, a prominent US-based specialty insurer, has announced the launch of professional indemnity (PI) insurance products specifically designed for the Australian market. This strategic move comes in response to a notable reduction in PI insurance capacity over recent years, leaving many professionals seeking reliable coverage options. - read more

Explore Alternative Insurance Options

Discover trusted solutions from our family of brands:

Comprehensive Indemnity Insurance to Protect Your Professional Reputation