'Unusual stress': Mazda owner compensated after five failed repairs

The owner of a 2019 Mazda CX-3 seeking that his insurer replace his car with a new model after five faulty windscreen replacements in a year has been awarded $2000 in compensation for stress and inconvenience but told he must allow Suncorp to tow his car to its repairer for assessment.

“This determination is mostly in favour of the insurer,” the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said.

“The policy does not entitle the complainant to a new car, unless his car is a total loss. The available information does not show the complainant’s car is a total loss.”

The Victorian man, who held a comprehensive car insurance policy with Suncorp, lodged a claim for damage to the car’s windscreen. Suncorp accepted the claim and its approved windscreen repairer replaced the windscreen five times between March 2020 and April 2021.

After each replacement, the complainant said the work was defective.

Water leaked through the windscreen after the fourth replacement, he said, and may have damaged electrical components. The repairer dried the interior with a heat gun, which damaged the roof liner, he said, providing video and photographs showing the parts of the car water leaked into. No report on the condition of his car from a repairer or assessor was provided.

Suncorp offered to inspect the car and rectify any faulty repairs and to provide a hire car during any required rectification, but the owner wanted Suncorp to settle the claim by providing a new car.

After some negotiation, the man said he would allow the car to be inspected by a Mazda dealership but not by the insurer’s repairer, and he would not allow the car’s dashboard to be removed unless Suncorp agreed to compensate him for devaluation of the car, though he did not provide information showing how the temporary removal of the dashboard would devalue the car.

AFCA ruled Suncorp was not required to replace the car and said the motorist must allow the insurer to inspect his car or Suncorp could not “properly assess the complainant’s allegations”.

“If the complainant does not allow the insurer to inspect the car, the insurer is not required to accept that the repairs need rectification.

“The complainant must allow the insurer to tow his car to its repairer for assessment. If the assessment shows the car has been damaged due to faulty repairs, the insurer must rectify the damage, unless it assesses the car as a total loss. If the complainant does not consent to the insurer rectifying the damage, the insurer can settle its liability by paying the reasonable cost of rectification.”

AFCA awarded the man $2000 compensation for non-financial loss. Suncorp had offered $500.

“The insurer is responsible for the quality of the workmanship and materials. (The repairer’s) work was faulty, and had to be rectified four times,” AFCA said. “This is beyond the usual amount of inconvenience involved in making a claim. This would have caused an unusual degree of stress, inconvenience, and delay for the complainant.”

The policy, under Suncorp’s Bingle brand, included a ‘lifetime repair guarantee’ and said “You’ll need to make your car available for us to inspect. If rectification is needed we will do the necessary rectification work, unless in our opinion it is not safe or economical for us to do so, in which case we will declare your car a total loss.”

AFCA said Suncorp could not properly respond to the complaint without inspecting the car.

“The insurer must assess how the car has been damaged, and what must be done to repair it. The best way to do this is to appoint a suitably-qualified expert to inspect the car,” the ruling said.

“The insurer cannot assess whether the car has any electrical damage without inspecting it. It would be unfair to require the insurer to respond to the complaint without having a reasonable opportunity to inspect the car.”

AFCA said the man could appoint another expert to inspect his car and Suncorp must fairly consider that report.

“Total loss” was defined by Suncorp as meaning “that, in our opinion, the damage to your car is so great that it would not be safe, practical, or economical to repair” and the insurer said it was unlikely the damage described would be sufficient to render the car a total loss.

“The complainant has not provided information showing that it would not be safe, practical, or economical to repair the car. He has not provided information showing the car should be assessed as a write-off,” AFCA said.

“The insurer is not required to replace the complainant’s car with a new car. If the insurer inspects the car and decides it is a total loss, the insurer must assess whether the policy entitles the complainant to a new car.”

See the full ruling here.