A claimant who damaged his two Mercedes-Benz cars in an accident has lost his bid to have both covered under a single policy.  

The policyholder said he reversed his Mercedes-Benz 219 into his parked Mercedes-Benz 350.  

He lodged a claim on the 219’s policy with Suncorp in September 2023.

Suncorp initially agreed to cover both damaged vehicles. However, the decision was reversed when it discovered the claimant owned the parked car, which was covered by a different insurer.

It said its initial decision was based on the claimant’s statement that his company owned the 350, not him.  

Records from the claim lodgement showed the insured told Suncorp the business owned the 350 but he was not planning to claim for it.

The claimant told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority the decision to refuse cover for the parked vehicle was unfair and should be reversed. He also argued the insurer misled him by suggesting both cars would be covered, and that he should be compensated for this.  

In its dispute decision, AFCA says the comprehensive vehicle policy covered “loss or damage to your vehicle” or “someone else’s property”.

It considered the suggestion that both vehicles could be seen as “your vehicle”, but says this would not be “a fair interpretation of the policy”.  

“If ‘your vehicle’ meant any vehicle owned by the policyholder ... this would mean a policy insuring one vehicle also insured all other vehicles owned by the same policyholder,” the authority said.  

“A person who buys a policy covering one vehicle cannot reasonably expect the policy to provide free cover for all of their other vehicles.”  

AFCA has also rejected the compensation bid. It acknowledges that Suncorp incorrectly said the 350 would be covered, but finds this only happened because the claimant said it was a company car.  

“The insurer gave incorrect information to the complainant, but only because the complainant gave incorrect information to the insurer. This was not the insurer’s fault.”  

Click here for the ruling.