An Allianz customer has lost a claim dispute after her husband consumed six pints of beer and two cans of vodka before turning a corner late on a dark and wet Friday night, sliding and hitting a telegraph pole.

The car was insured under the comprehensive motor policy of a business in which she was the sole director. After the September 2020 accident, ambulance and police attended the scene and the wife was transported to hospital to be treated for injuries. The driver stated he had consumed six pints of full-strength beer and two cans of vodka between 3pm and 10:30pm, before the 11pm accident.

An alcohol breath test taken around 90 minutes after the crash produced an alcohol reading of 0.149. The husband was charged with negligent and mid-range drink driving and ordered to appear in court, where he pleaded guilty.

Allianz declined the claim on the basis he drove with a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled an Allianz exemption stating it would pay a claim "if you can prove to us … you had no reason to suspect that the driver was affected by alcohol” did not apply in this case.

The pair were together between 6pm and 10:30pm while the driver was drinking at a hotel prior to dinner, and then drinking again at dinner. Prior to their departure the wife asked her husband if he was okay to drive, and he advised he was fine.

“I am satisfied on balance that the complainant did suspect that the driver was affected by alcohol,” the ombudsman said. "This had even prompted her to check that he was okay to drive.”

She was with her husband the “entire time” at the hotel and during dinner, and AFCA said that indicated some knowledge the driver had consumed several drinks even if he had consumed further drinks earlier at home she was not aware of.

“I am not satisfied that the complainant’s single question was sufficient to establish his capacity to drive or his level of intoxication,” AFCA said. “The fact the complainant questioned the driver shows that she suspected he was affected by alcohol. Her acceptance of his answer is not sufficient, on the information provided, to show that her suspicion was alleviated.

“Had she questioned the driver further it would have been apparent that his consumption of alcohol may have affected him.”

The Allianz customer said she had no reason to suspect her husband was affected by alcohol and she had only observed him drinking beer over the course of dinner, and had not paid close attention to the number of drinks he consumed. She was not a specialist and would not know what the driver’s level of intoxication would be, and was not aware what he drank during the night.

AFCA ruled she had not met the policy requirement to prove she did not suspect that the driver was affected by alcohol.

“The information of the mid-range reading more than an hour after the accident and her inquiries to the driver prior to leaving the venue, on balance, would indicate she would have suspected he was affected by alcohol,” the ruling said.

“I am not satisfied that the complainant has proven she did not suspect.”

See the full ruling here.