An uninsured driver who was sandwiched in the middle of a three-car ‘nose-to-tail’ collision has lost a dispute after RACQ Insurance agreed to cover damage at the rear of his vehicle but denied liability for damage to the front.

RACQ, which insured the other two cars involved in the January accident, said that as the middle driver, the man failed to stop in time and collided with the back of the first vehicle, damaging the front of his car.

It was only after this that he was hit by the last vehicle, RACQ said, and on that basis it only agreed liability for the damage at the back of the car, not at the front.

The man went to the Australian Financial Complainants Authority (AFCA), arguing that the RACQ-insured driver in the last vehicle pushed his vehicle into the first vehicle and it was this that caused the damage to the front of his car.

AFCA ruled RACQ was not liable for the damage to the car’s front as he had not met his onus to show the third driver was the cause.

“I prefer RACQ’s version of events,” the ombudsman said.

RACQ said there were two collisions and only accepted it was liable for the second accident, when the third vehicle collided with the middle vehicle.

Prior to this, RACQ argued, he had already collided with the front vehicle - and that caused the damage to the front of his car, not its policyholder’s driving.

In versions of events from both the other drivers, the front driver reported feeling two bumps.

The uninsured man stated there was only a single collision in which the third car pushed his vehicle into the first one. He provided statements from two passengers supporting his version of events.

AFCA said liability changed depending on which version of events was preferred, and it backed RACQ.

“I accept there were two collisions and therefore, the insured driver did not cause the damage to the front of the complainant’s vehicle because it was, on balance, caused in the first collision prior to the insured driver hitting the complainant’s vehicle,” the ombudsman said.

“The complainant would have already damaged the front of his vehicle by hitting the front vehicle before the rear vehicle hit him. It would not be fair to say the insurer is liable for the damage to the front of the complainant’s vehicle.”

RACQ was only liable for the damage it had already accepted to the rear of his car, the determination said.

AFCA considers complaints about damage to an uninsured vehicle caused by the driver of an insured vehicle, though insurers are only liable once it is shown the insured driver caused the collision.

See the full ruling here.