AFCA dismisses fluoride finding in water fight
IAG must pay more than $89,000 to a Mercedes owner after the financial services ombudsman rejected its decision to deny a flood damage claim.
The claimant, a disability support worker, told the insurer he parked his car with the sunroof open at a client’s home, and it was hit by overnight rainfall.
The vehicle sustained damage to electrical components and was declared a total loss.
IAG engaged a mechanic who said a sample of water from the vehicle contained fluoride, as found in tap water.
The mechanic also referred to weather data showing minimal rainfall at the time of the loss.
The insurer declined the claim and initially suggested it was fraudulent. It later retracted that suggestion and said the damage was not proven to be caused by a storm.
But the claimant said there were various reasons why fluoride might have been detected, noting several people were in the car in the nine days between the damage and the sample.
| Related article: Motorist fails to reverse insurer’s fault finding after smash |
He said fluoride could have been in a drink a client had while in the car or a cleaning chemical used by a car wash.
He also noted the mechanic mistakenly referred to rainfall data from July 10 2024, but the loss happened on July 11, when about 6mm of rain was recorded.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the car owner has established he suffered a claimable loss, noting his account of events was consistent and his responses to the insurer’s points were supported by evidence.
The insurer’s mechanic was not qualified to “definitively comment on how the fluoride identified came to be in the water sample, or whether it is inconsistent with the damage having been caused by rainwater”.
IAG must also pay $3000 compensation for non-financial loss over its claim handling.
“The insurer made very serious allegations against the complainant, which it could not establish. It withdrew those allegations but did not apologise for making them.
“The insurer also failed to properly investigate and respond to information the complainant provided and caused unnecessary delay.”
See the ruling here.