A motor policyholder will not receive a payout after her husband accidentally filled her fuel tank with diesel exhaust fluid – despite arguing her insurer said it would cover the claim.

The insured said that while lodging her claim on the phone, a Suncorp representative noted she was “lucky” because the use of AdBlue fluid would not count as using the wrong type of fuel – an excluded event.  

But when the insurer took her vehicle for assessment, she was told the damage would not be covered. 

The policyholder said the decision was unfair, noting the policy’s product disclosure statement excluded “incorrect fuel usage”, and AdBlue is not fuel.  

She also said the insurer’s tow operator damaged her car by dragging it onto a truck, requiring a new steering rack and realignment of the wheels.  

Suncorp said it reviewed the claim lodgement call and found its representative did not say the claim would be accepted – only that the insurer would proceed with an assessment.  

The insurer acknowledged the PDS wording but said this was revised in a supplementary statement to include damage “caused by a fuel or other fluid being used other than the fuel or fluid recommended by the car’s manufacturer”.  

It admitted making a mistake in its initial rejection letter by referring only to the PDS, but maintained the supplementary PDS clearly excluded cover for the incident.

The insurer said the supplementary PDS was sent to the claimant when the policy was last renewed. 

Suncorp’s vehicle inspector said there was no way for the car to have been dragged given it was winched onto the truck and its wheels rolled easily when it was in neutral.

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority finds the insurer did not tell the woman the claim would be accepted, and relying on the supplementary PDS was fair.  

“While I accept the insurer made an error in referring to the original PDS wording rather than the updated SPDS wording in its initial decline correspondence, I do not accept this means the insurer is required to accept the claim,” an authority ombudsman said.  

“If the insurer had not made this error and had referred to the correct SPDS wording from the start, the complainant would be in the same position as she is now, and the claim would have been declined.” 

AFCA is not persuaded the insurer caused the damage to the vehicle’s steering rack and wheels, saying there is limited evidence of this. 

However, it requires Suncorp to pay $3000 compensation for delays that caused the woman to be without her car for longer than necessary, leading to “avoidable stress and inconvenience”.

See the ruling here.