A tractor owner who said his vehicle was damaged by someone maliciously shoving dirt down the engine oil cap has lost a claim dispute.

The commercial fleet policyholder’s John Deere tractor broke down two years ago and he lodged a claim saying an unidentified third party had contaminated the oil system with silicon and dirt.

Insurer QBE said the damage was caused by wear and tear and mechanical failure, excluded under the policy. It denied the August 2022 claim.

The tractor owner told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority the engine had operated for only 2400 hours when it broke down and the vehicle had been well maintained.

Various experts disagreed on causation, but AFCA says the evidence ultimately backs QBE’s version of events.

“The engine was likely damaged by failure or breakdown of a mechanical nature and wear and tear, which are expressly excluded under the terms of the policy,” the authority said.

A mechanic who inspected the tractor shortly after it broke down flushed the sump and found a large amount of silicon and dirt. They concluded the contaminants had been introduced when the vehicle was left unattended.

A QBE-engaged engineer had the engine dismantled. A piston ring was found to be worn and fractured, and partly detached into the sump, and he concluded the dirt probably entered through the air intake system, rather than via a deliberate act.

The mechanic disagreed and the tractor owner raised concerns with QBE about its engineer’s conduct and history.

QBE then appointed a forensic mechanical engineer to review all exchanged material, including several other expert reports.

AFCA says that review is “comprehensive, logical, reasoned and is supported by illustrative diagrams and photographs”. It is “analytical and compelling, and the conclusions set out persuasive”.

The forensic mechanical engineer said dirt in the air inlet tract could not be explained by it being introduced directly into the sump, and concluded that during servicing of the tractor the air filter element was not properly reinstalled.

“There is no evidence, I can see, of the claimed event having actually occurred,” their report said. “It is my opinion that the engine was dusted because it was not satisfactorily maintained. The engine failure did occur because of the entry of dirt, but not dirt introduced (maliciously or otherwise) directly into the engine oil.”

AFCA says that aside from the “assumptions of the complainant”, experts offered “no persuasive independent evidence that malicious damage occurred”. 

See the ruling here.