A truck driver who lost control of his Ford Mustang and drove into an electricity pole shortly after leaving home for an afternoon haircut has won a large payout following a claim dispute.

The 56-year old man, who held a held a comprehensive policy with Suncorp, had just departed at 4pm in July last year when the single-vehicle accident occurred a short distance from his house.

After slowly proceeding in first gear around 300 metres from his home, he changed into second gear and travelled at a low speed for around 50 metres before accelerating. A rear wheel lost traction and slipped and he felt something snap, possible the rear axle or control arm.

The man, who was a professional truck driver with many years of experience and no poor driving or speeding offences, lost control and collided with the pole, leaving the 2018 Ford Mustang GT FN Manual (IV) a total loss.

A claim lodged later the same day was declined by Suncorp on the basis an intentional or reckless act and failure to take reasonable precautions caused the accident.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled the accident was unexpected and the claim valid and the insurer was to settle the $58,100 cover amount plus interest, less applicable policy deductions.

“Whilst I accept the driver’s acceleration of the Mustang in the circumstances may have been careless, irresponsible or even negligent, this is not sufficient to establish he was aware of the risk of his actions and showed a reckless indifference to the consequences,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

“Suncorp does not … suggest it was intentional. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the driver has established a claim that falls within the terms of the policy.

“There is an absence of any evidence indicating the driver was hooning as suggested or acting recklessly,” the ombudsman said. “I am not satisfied … that he deliberately courted the danger as is required for the relevant exclusion to apply.”

The driver was adamant he was not speeding but admitted he lost control of the vehicle and said his error was to be too close to the left-hand side of the street, a habit developed over many years as a truck driver, and said his rear passenger wheel hit a drain grate and was flicked into the kerb, resulting in the loss of traction and control.

Police attended the scene and he was issued with an infringement for losing proper control of a vehicle and fined $311. A neighbour said she saw the Mustang hit the corner of the central island, swerve to the kerb and then hit the pole.

Suncorp’s forensic investigator said immediately prior to the accident, the Mustang was travelling at approximately 84 kmh in a 50 kmh zone and had harshly accelerated over a short distance, based on pre-crash data automatically stored by the Mustang.

That also indicated speeds reached 119 km/hr, based on electrical signals sent by the wheel speed sensors, though the investigator suggested this was a false speed reading caused by the wheel slip.

Given the false reading, AFCA said it was not fair “to place significant weight on actions assumed by Suncorp given the concerns with the data”.

While it was clear the driver lifted his foot off the accelerator at least twice in the 5 seconds leading up to the impact with pole, and there was the possibility he put his foot on the accelerator as opposed to the brake pedal in the attempt to regain control of the car, the evidence did not establish he was being reckless or failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid damage to the Mustang, AFCA said.

“The fact that an insured driver has been shown to be speeding is not sufficient of itself to establish that the driver acted intentionally or recklessly,” AFCA said. It also said the Mustang’s ability to accelerate could occur with “even the slightest of pressure being applied to the accelerator pedal within seconds”.

The complainant’s driving history for the previous decade revealed no propensity to drive in a reckless manner and AFCA said it was plausible external factors such as impact with the central island - or the rear passenger wheel being flicked towards the kerb because of the drain grate - caused the loss of control.

AFCA said whether an individual acted recklessly was a “subjective test which goes to the driver’s actual understanding of the risk and which must be evaluated from the driver perspective and not with the benefit of hindsight”.

See the full ruling here.