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 While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident.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

NSW Builders Required to Obtain Professional Indemnity Insurance by July 2026

14 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Starting 1 July 2026, all registered building practitioners in New South Wales (NSW) will be mandated to hold professional indemnity (PI) insurance, as stipulated by the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2021. This legislative change aims to enhance accountability and protect clients from potential financial losses due to professional negligence or defects in construction work. - read more

Rising Professional Indemnity Claims in Australia's Financial Services Sector

14 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian financial services sector is currently experiencing a significant increase in professional indemnity (PI) insurance claims, largely due to intensified regulatory scrutiny. This trend has profound implications for professionals and insurers operating within the industry. - read more

Australia's Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Faces Mounting Pressure

14 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) in Australia is currently under significant strain due to a surge in claims linked to failed financial products. This situation has prompted industry leaders to advocate for structural reforms to ensure the scheme's sustainability and effectiveness. - read more

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

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