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.

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 While Suncorp admitted to referencing outdated PDS wording initially, AFCA deemed their reliance on the updated SPDS appropriate and found no obligation for the insurer to cover the incident.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

Clear

Claims Handling Scrutiny Offers Income Protection Lessons

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry attention on insurance claims handling has put a practical issue back in front of Australian households: a policy is only as valuable as the support it provides when a claim is made. For income protection insurance, that moment often arrives during illness, injury, stress and reduced cash flow, so clear communication and timely assessment matter enormously. - read more

New APRA Data Reinforces the Need to Review Income Protection Cover

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has put income protection back under the spotlight, with disability income products continuing to be one of the more closely watched areas of the sector. While the broader life insurance industry has been showing signs of improved stability, the update reinforces that policies designed to replace income after illness or injury remain sensitive to claims experience, pricing, and changing work and health trends. - read more

AFCA Decision Highlights Limits on Recovering Income Protection Payments

22 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has offered an important reminder for anyone relying on income protection insurance through work or super: once benefits have been paid, an insurer generally needs a strong and clearly evidenced basis before asking for that money back. - read more

Why Commission Earners Should Check Their Income Protection Wording

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put an important issue in focus for sales staff, recruiters, account managers and other workers whose income depends partly on commission. The dispute involved a policyholder covered under an employer’s group income protection arrangement with MetLife. After a work-related mental health injury, he claimed on the policy, but his commission earnings were left out when his pre-disability income was calculated. - read more

What the Life Code Review Could Mean for Mental Health Claims

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice has put mental health cover at the centre of the national conversation about life insurance, disability insurance and income protection. Independent reviewer Peter Kell has completed his final report, outlining 85 recommendations aimed at improving customer protections, claims handling, communication, vulnerability support and the enforceability of the Code. - read more

Cancer Claim Decision Shows Why Policy Wording Matters

01 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has underlined a point that is easy to overlook when buying personal insurance: a serious diagnosis does not always mean a policy benefit will be payable. The ruling, reported on 29 June 2026, involved a claimant who sought benefits after being diagnosed with high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Although the illness was serious and required treatment, AFCA found the insurer was entitled to rely on the specific wording of the policy. - read more

Click for more Insurance News