A learner driver who reversed a 2003 Toyota Corolla into a concrete barrier, panicked, and then drove into a parked Ferrari has lost a claim dispute.

The man drove alone on October 30 2019 after his mother, who held a third party liability policy with RACQ noting her son as a listed driver, told him to go and practise.

He expressed concern that he was not allowed to drive unaccompanied as he held a learner’s licence. The mother usually accompanied him during practice, though he had previously taken the insured vehicle out alone with her permission.

While unaccompanied in the Corolla, the son entered a dead-end street and attempted a three-point turn. He accidentally reversed into the barrier, “panicked”, and then drove into someone’s garage door, colliding with their Ferrari which was parked inside.

The son called RACQ to arrange a tow truck and report the accident. RACQ informed him he was not entitled to a tow truck under the policy. He lodged a claim five days after the accident after receiving contact from the Ferrari-owner’s insurer.

RACQ declined the claim, saying the son did not comply with conditions and laws.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled RACQ was entitled to deny the claim.

Had he been accompanied by an experienced driver holding an O type licence as required, there was “a reasonable chance to avoid impact”, AFCA said.

“There is no dispute that [the son] was in charge of the insured vehicle alone at the time of the accident. Further, that he was at fault for the accident and that he held a learner’s licence at the time.”

Driver licensing laws stipulate that the holder of a learner’s licence must not drive on a road unless driving under the direction of a person who has held an O type licence for at least a year sitting next to the holder.

“The policy clearly informs the policyholder that there is no cover for loss or damage arising from circumstances where the person in charge of the vehicle fails to comply with any condition of their driver’s licence or learners permit, and/or the person fails to comply with any relevant laws that apply where they are driving the insured vehicle,” AFCA said.

“The facts and circumstances of how the accident took place are not in dispute and are clearly excluded from cover under the policy.”

See the full ruling here.