Vintage car owner wins storm damage dispute

The owner of a 1971 Citroen that suffered storm damage and likely subsequent deterioration in the care of his insurer will receive significant compensation for his losses after winning a claims dispute.

The complainant, who had comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, disagreed with the amount offered by Suncorp to cover repair costs to the vintage car after hail impact and tree damage in January 2020.

Suncorp conducted an assessment of the vehicle on March 4 the same year, and identified significant damage to the vehicle’s right-hand side and roof, as well as noticeable damage to the bonnet.

The insurer offered a cash settlement rather than a complete repair, noting likely delays for shipping parts from overseas and sub-standard pre-existing repair work as factors for its decision.

The settlement offered $16,735.88 for repair and shipping costs and added an extra 10% ($1673.59) for any unforeseen expenses.

The complainant disputed Suncorp’s offer and said he believed $30,000 would be required to have a specialist repairer fix the vehicle.

He noted that the insurer based its assessment on the wrong vehicle model and that several parts could not be repaired and needed to be replaced.

The complainant’s expert repairer, referred to as P, had previously worked on the car and said the estimated costs to restore it to its original state would be around $28,000.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) agreed with the complainant’s argument. It said given the insurer’s misidentification, it was probable that the vehicle did require an increased sum for repairs to return it to its original state.

The determination requires the insurer to increase its settlement to $28,000 for repair works and a further 10% for costs associated with finding parts and shipping, totaling $30,800.

The complainant also sought compensation for deterioration suffered by the vehicle while it was in Suncorp’s care.

The insurer first took the car on February 17 2020, and identified some surface rust. On April 28 2020, the insurer offered to return the vehicle to the complainant, but he declined, citing the payment dispute and said the insurer needed to conduct further inspections. The car remained with the insurer until July 30, 2020.

While it was in the insurer’s care, the vehicle was stored uncovered and unprotected. The claimant said the car suffered significant deterioration, including cracking and rust on the roof, and had concerns over its functionality after mud and dirt remained in the vehicle for months.

A specialist who worked for the insurer observed the damage and said further inspections were required to confirm the mechanical and electrical condition of the vehicle.

Suncorp said the wear would have occurred regardless of whether the car was stored inside or outside because of local weather and said its policy excluded damage arising from wear, rust, or corrosion.

AFCA dismissed the insurer’s attempt not to cover the damage, saying it had a responsibility store the vehicle appropriately and ordered a full assessment by an independent party to investigate further damage.

AFCA said Suncorp would be liable for any further deterioration found.

The ruling also awarded $3000 compensation to the complainant for the insurer’s handling of the claim. It noted the misidentification of the vehicle and its storage as key factors for the compensation.

Click here for the full ruling.