An uninsured scooter driver who alleged that an insured driver was at fault for a collision will not be compensated for damage after losing his claims dispute. 

The two parties had been involved in the crash at a “T intersection” on November 17 last year, providing conflicting accounts. 

The complainant, who had just collected his new scooter, says the crash occurred after the car driver crossed into his lane as he had been turning right off the intersection and hit the scooter’s right side. He says the driver's insurer should cover losses associated with damage to his scooter. 

The insured driver, who did not lodge a claim, challenged the complainant’s account and attributed the incident to the rider’s decision to turn without “doing a headcheck”, causing the rider to hit the back of the left-hand side of the car while it had been passing. 

QBE declined the claim, relying on the insured driver’s account of the event for its decision.

The complainant disputed QBE’s decision, noting that the insured’s descriptions of the event to the police had differed from their account to the insurer. 

He says the insured driver told police that the scooter driver was on the left side of the road, but told the insurer the scooter was stationary on the right-side kerb.

The complainant also notes that the road markings before and after the intersection had been unbroken lines, meaning that the insured’s decision to overtake had been illegal.

However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) was not convinced that the insured driver had changed their account of the event, despite noting the difference between the descriptions in the police report and insurer notes. 

AFCA says the insured only mentioned the right side of the kerb once and otherwise had been consistent in their drawings and explanation of the event. It attributed the mistake to English not being the first language of the insured. 

The ruling also highlights that Google Streetview images of the road where the incident occurred showed that the centre road line had been broken. It says even if the lines had been unbroken, this would not have supported the complainant’s contention as it wouldn’t have shown who caused the event.

AFCA acknowledged a lack of third-party information to support either account, as no cameras or witnesses captured the event, and the police had not assigned a cause. 

The ruling backs QBE's decision, noting that both accounts are “equally plausible” and that there was “insufficient information to prefer one version over the other”. 

“For the insurer to be liable for the damage to the complainant’s scooter, the complainant must show the insured driver caused the collision,” AFCA said.

“After carefully reviewing the available information and considering the circumstances of the collision, I am not satisfied the complainant has met his onus to show, on balance, the insured driver caused the collision.

“As the complainant has not shown the insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, the insurer is not liable for the damage to the complainant’s scooter.”

Click here for the ruling.