A driver who crashed his truck on a sand dune will be covered for his losses after the dispute authority found he did not act recklessly.

The man said he had been driving his 2021 Dodge Ram on a beach with two friends, and was travelling about 60km/h when he went up the dune. He “failed the front drop”, sending the vehicle airborne before it crashed front first and rolled onto the driver’s side.

He attributed the December 2022 crash to the weight of the vehicle causing the dune to collapse, and lodged a total loss claim.

The man told insurer Zurich’s investigator it had been windy and the dune was a “razorback”, characterised by its smooth incline.

A police report said the driver had been travelling about 80km/h – “too fast” and without “effective control of the vehicle”.

The insurer engaged two experts who said the crash was “not consistent with an accident”.

One said if the dune had given way under the vehicle’s weight, the truck would probably have slid and not nosedived.  

The experts differed on the vehicle’s speed, with a lower estimate of 60km/h and a higher estimate of 87-90km/h.

Zurich said evidence showed the incident was not “unforeseen or unintended” but was caused by the man driving off the dune at excessive speed.  

The passengers said the man had not been driving recklessly. One said the dune’s crest “appeared suddenly”, and neither he nor the driver expected the other side to be so steep.  

The claimant also engaged an expert, who said the insurer’s analysis did not consider the wheels spinning without traction and was not an accurate reflection of the vehicle’s speed.  

In its dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority notes the driver hit the brakes about 2.1 seconds before impact, suggesting he was “unaware of the other side of the crest of the sand dune”.  

It accepts the vehicle was travelling at no more than 60km/h.  

The authority’s ombudsman agrees that, based on the available information, the incident was unintended and an accident.

And they reject the insurer’s argument that the driver courted danger, stating: “Being unaware of the danger is not a failure to take reasonable precautions. I am satisfied that the complainant held a reasonable belief that the top of the sand dune would be flatter.

“The complainant did not foresee that he would become airborne and that the vehicle would nosedive into the sand, resulting in the damage.

“I accept that this was a genuine mistake.”  

Click here for the ruling.