A driver whose wheel arch was dented and his rear door scraped by a ski while in a carpark at an Alpine resort has lost a claim dispute after his insurer charged multiple excesses.

The man, who was insured by Suncorp, said it appeared someone opened their door into his parked car and caused a dent above the wheel and also that his rear passenger door had been hit with the end of a ski or ski pole. He was not present when the damage occurred.

Separately, some damage was also done to his front bumper bar when he was either entering or departing the carpark. This damage was minor and it was unclear exactly when it happened.

The man went to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) seeking compensation after Suncorp accepted his claim but said the damage related to three separate incidents and each required payment of an excess.

The man was only prepared to pay two excesses and he also sought compensation for time spent dealing with the matter.

AFCA ruled Suncorp was not required to pay compensation as it had not unduly delayed the matter and the driver was not subject to unusual inconvenience.

“The handling of the matter by the insurer was adequate. There is no need for an award of compensation,” it said.

AFCA also determined there were three separate, single events or incidents to account for the damage to the insured vehicle.

“I accept there was some frustration for the complainant in being informed by the insurer he had to pay three excesses. I am satisfied though this is the correct decision,” the AFCA ombudsman said.

All parties agreed the damage to the bumper bar constituted one incident.

Photographs detailed the two other areas of damage: the indentation above the front passenger side wheel arch consistent with it being hit by an opening car door and a scrape on the passenger side rear door, which AFCA accepted may have been caused by a ski pole.

“I do not accept the damage above the wheel arch was due to the same incident that caused the damage to the rear door. Each is a separate incident,” the ruling says.

“To the extent the complainant wishes to claim for the three areas of damage, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to apply a separate excess for each area.”

AFCA said it takes a conservative approach to compensation and expects a complainant to bear a normal degree of inconvenience during the course of a claim.

See the full ruling here.