A motorist who was supervising when his learner-driver son was involved in a crash will be covered for the damage after the complaints authority found the man had de facto control of the car.

Insurer Lloyd’s Australia said the 16-year-old son was the driver and declined the claim because under-25s were not approved drivers under the policy.

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the policy did not provide clear definitions of terms such as “drive” or “driver”.

Other reasonable interpretations could consider driving as having “substantial control over and responsibility for the movement of the vehicle”. AFCA also notes the Macquarie Dictionary definition of “drive” refers to being “in control of a motor vehicle”.

Under a broader interpretation, it says, a supervising driver could be considered to have control because the learner needs their consent to operate the vehicle and is obliged to follow their instructions.

AFCA also says a supervisor has “a degree of legal responsibility for the movement of the car”.

The ombudsman says this interpretation is supported “to an extent” by SA driving regulations, including the Road Traffic Act 1961, which states a “responsible person” includes “a person in charge or apparently in charge of a vehicle”. 

AFCA recognises that other legislative provisions suggest a learner driver is accountable for their actions, but it concludes driving is not “definitively restricted to only the person in physical control of the vehicle”. 

“Although the son was not an approved driver, the complainant was,” the ombudsman said. “It can reasonably be said that, at the time of the loss, the car was ‘being driven’ by him. 

“It is fair and reasonable to interpret the notion of driving more broadly than the insurer argues for. The complainant had de facto control over and responsibility for the car.

“The insurer is not entitled to decline the claim.”

See the ruling here.