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 While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident.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

Insurance News

FAAA Challenges Proposed Increases to Professional Indemnity Insurance Limits

06 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Financial Advisers Association of Australia (FAAA) has recently voiced its opposition to proposed increases in professional indemnity (PI) insurance limits, cautioning that such changes could lead to significant cost burdens for financial advisers. In a submission to the Treasury's consultation on potential reforms to PI insurance within the financial services sector, the FAAA emphasised that reforms to the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) should take precedence over adjustments to minimum PI settings. - read more

Markel Unveils Tailored Professional Indemnity Insurance for Australian Market

06 Apr 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

Financial Services Industry Emerges as Epicentre of Professional Indemnity Claims

06 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The financial services sector in Australia has been identified as a focal point for professional indemnity (PI) claims, driven by heightened regulatory scrutiny and recent enforcement actions. Legal experts from Moray & Agnew Lawyers have highlighted that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated proceedings against investment funds such as Shield Master Trust and First Guardian, leading to prosecutions across the financial services chain. - read more

FAAA Cautions Against Higher Professional Indemnity Insurance Limits

29 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

The Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) has urged the Federal Government to reconsider any blanket increases to professional indemnity insurance (PII) requirements, expressing concerns over potential cost escalations for financial advisers. This caution comes in response to Treasury's consultation on potential reforms to PII within the financial services sector. - read more

New Professional Indemnity Insurance Available for Midwives' Intrapartum Care

29 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

As of 1 July 2025, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has introduced a professional indemnity insurance (PII) product specifically designed for midwives providing intrapartum care. This development, under the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme (MPIS), ensures that midwives now have access to comprehensive PII coverage for all aspects of private midwifery practice. - read more

Click for more Insurance News

Explore Alternative Insurance Options

Discover trusted solutions from our family of brands:

Comprehensive Indemnity Insurance to Protect Your Professional Reputation