The financial services ombudsman has backed an insurer’s at-fault decision and application of a $2300 excess on a car owner’s claim after her son reversed into an oncoming vehicle.  

The son said he was slowly backing out from a car park when the other car “came flying” and hit him.

The mother said the other driver was at fault for going too fast, and argued the son was stationary when hit.

She provided the Australian Financial Complaints Authority with footage from the car’s reverse camera, which showed the other vehicle hit hers about two seconds after coming into view.  

But Insurance Manufacturers of Australia said the son caused the crash because he unsafely reversed into oncoming traffic and the other car had the right of way.  

It said a large toolbox was covering the rear window, impeding the driver’s vision, but the policyholder said her son could see because the rear camera was on top of the box.  

The insurer also rejected the argument the claimant’s car was stationary when hit.  

In its dispute ruling, AFCA says the evidence suggests the son was probably at fault.  

“This is because he has acknowledged he couldn’t see the oncoming vehicle while he was reversing, and the road rules require him not to reverse unless he can do so safely,” the authority said. 

“Additionally, the information provided does not confirm the other driver was travelling in excess of the applicable speed limit or otherwise unsafely.”  

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia said the claimant’s policy included a basic excess of $700, plus $1600 if the driver was aged under 25.

The claimant also disputed the insurer’s loss decision. She said she was told by a repairer that the car had chassis damage that was unsafe to fix and that the insurer earlier suggested it was a write-off.

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia acknowledged that a tow company cited the vehicle being a write-off as its reason for declining to transport it. But it said the company was incorrect, and only its assessor could deem the vehicle a total loss, which it had not.  

It said its repairer considered chassis measurements and wheel alignment in its diagnostic testing and did not find the vehicle unrepairable.  

AFCA says the insurer appropriately explained its decision and its assessment was fair.  

It accepts the proposal to cash settle for $1585 after the excess is paid, adding a 20% “uplift to account for any cost increases since the repair quote was obtained, any contingencies and the loss of the lifetime repair guarantee”.

AFCA rejects a bid for compensation over the insurer’s handling of the claim, despite the policyholder’s protests that it “withheld information showing the vehicle is a total loss”.  

It finds the insurer “managed the claim reasonably overall”.  

See the ruling here.