A company that said its truck broke down due to a collision with an emu will not be covered for its loss after the dispute ombudsman ruled that mechanical failure was the cause.  

The claimant says its vehicle stopped working a few weeks after one of its drivers hit an emu at about 90km/h. It says its driver inspected the vehicle after the hit but found “no visible damage” and continued driving.  

The complainant relied on information from a mechanic who reported that the engine had “lost compression… due to the initial animal strike damaging the radiator”. Following the mechanic’s inspection, it lodged a claim.  

NTI’s internal assessor inspected the truck and reported that there had been “little to no impact damage”.   

The assessor identified that the vehicle’s sub-radiator assembly had expanded, indicating that the cooling system had exceeded its serviceability age. They attribute the engine failure to the sub-radiator assembly fault, saying this led to a loss of coolant and caused the engine to overheat.   

The insurer appointed a forensic mechanical engineer who found a buildup of crystallised coolant in the sub-radiator, indicating that it had been leaking for months or years.  

The engineer said the location of the buildup suggested the leak came from a rubber gasket or from a split in a plastic tank. He also noted that he did not see a low coolant warning sensor when inspecting the vehicle and questioned whether it was installed when the engine failed.  

The complainant says the impact with the emu could have caused a “hairline crack” in the radiator, which the coolant later burst through. It argues that the coolant could have been emptied within a few seconds following the crack, which is why the warning system did not activate.  

The engineer disagreed with the complainant’s explanation and said that even if all of the coolant had been expelled quickly, the warning systems would have been activated to give the driver time to stop the engine before it was damaged.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agreed with NTI’s experts that a prolonged leak caused the engine breakdown.  

It found that the policyholder’s explanation did not address why the truck broke down two weeks after the impact with the emu or its effect on the sub-radiator.    

“The truck broke down because wear and tear caused a mechanical failure,’ the authority said. “The policy excludes cover for wear and tear and ‘mechanical events’.”  

The authority dismissed the complainant’s allegation that the insurer took an “unacceptable amount of time to progress the claim” and damaged the truck. It found that the insurer provided its decision within a month of the claim lodgement and appropriately responded to the requests for the claim to be reopened.  

It also found that NTI had not left the truck in poor condition and fairly took its parts due to its investigation. It said the insurer should return these parts should the complainant request it.   

Click here for the ruling.