A concrete pumping contractor who sought cover for damage to his machinery has won his claim dispute after his insurer alleged that he had breached operating standards. 

The complainant had been operating the concrete pump and boom machine on December 23 2022, when it fell and caused damage to a neighbouring property. The machine was later assessed as uneconomical to repair and decommissioned.  

A QBE-appointed assessor, referred to as MC, reported that the machine fell over after it had sunk into wet ground whilst it had been pumping. The assessor also raised issues that the machine had been set up in an “unsafe arrangement”, given that it was placed on an angled driveway and was “short-legged” on its right side.  

MC concluded that the machine would not have tipped over if its right-side outriggers had been fully deployed.

The insurer also engaged with a loss adjuster who noted that the machine was “positioned outside a safe operating zone” and “highly susceptible to rollover”. 

The complainant argued that the machine fell over after it succumbed to “unforeseen sub-ground factors” that undermined the pump’s stability. A supporting witness statement also stated that the pump tilted after the supporting ground gave way.  

However, QBE accepted that the contractor did not operate the machine in compliance with its legal operating standards and declined the claim based on policy exclusions, which required machine operators to take “reasonable precautions” and follow set standards and laws. 

The insurer says the complainant’s explanation supported its argument that the ground was unsafe and that his failure to appropriately ensure the machine’s safety “materially led to the loss”. 

The insured says the incident had been “simply an accident” and that it was unfair for the insurer to rely on its conclusions without any expert or engineering advice to support its assessment. 

He acknowledged that the right-side outriggers had not been wholly extended but said this would not have prevented the loss as it was caused by part of the machine sinking into the ground. The claimant referred to statements from two qualified concrete specialists who confirmed that the setup was not problematic.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) noted QBE’s submissions that the complainant breached several guidelines relating to the machine’s handling, setup and use but says there had been “no persuasive evidence” to show that any breaches had occurred.  

“I am not satisfied the insurer has supplied sufficient or persuasive evidence in support of any of these submissions,” AFCA said. 

“The fact that the machine failed and sustained damage is not a self-evident example of non-compliance.” 

The ruling noted that WorkSafe Victoria had investigated the incident and filed no charges against the insured. 

AFCA also dismissed the insurer’s argument that the contractor failed the “reasonable precaution” test, saying it did not outline how the operator had been aware of the potential risk of the soft ground.  

The ruling acknowledged that the complainant “could have potentially better prepared at the site” but says QBE should cover the claim. 

“The policy covers damage, and the insurer has not adequately demonstrated the cited exclusion or policy conditions apply to deny or restrict coverage for the claim,” AFCA said. 

“The insurer is required to indemnify the complainant for the damage caused to the machine.” 

AFCA did not consider any liability claims arising from the incident, as they are beyond its jurisdiction. 

Click here for the ruling.