A driver who drank at least four glasses of champagne in an hour before crashing a company car has lost a claim dispute after her insurer argued she was “profoundly impaired by alcohol”.  

The woman, a director at the business that insured the Range Rover, lodged a claim after hitting another vehicle in December 2023.  

She told insurer Allianz she was driving from a party about 7.30pm when she veered to the other side of the road while taking a bend.  

Allianz said it would accept the claim but would investigate further.  

In an interview, the woman said she drank four glasses of “self-poured” champagne at a friend’s house between 6.15pm and 7.15pm.  

She said she rarely drank alcohol but did not feel she had “anywhere near enough to be intoxicated enough to not have allowed me to drive safely”.

She also noted she had only one meal in the 24 hours before the accident.  

In the dispute before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, Allianz did not provide a police report but pointed to information showing the woman gave a positive breath test at the crash scene and recorded a blood alcohol concentration of 0.102 – twice the legal limit – two hours later.

She was charged with “driving a motor vehicle while exceeding prescribed alcohol limit”.

The insurer also presented a forensic medical report in which a doctor estimated her blood alcohol concentration would have been about 0.115 at the time of the crash, and that her ability to drive safely was “profoundly impaired by alcohol”.  

The doctor said this “almost certainly accounts for failing to maintain road position on a bend leading to the collision”.  

Allianz referred to its motor policy’s drink-drive exclusion as its reason for denying the claim.  

The complainant argued Allianz had not proven she was influenced by alcohol or that it was the main factor for the crash.  

She said police had not charged her further over the accident, and she later revised her recollection of drinking four glasses in an hour.

The woman said it was unfair to rely on the doctor’s report without “conclusive proof or a full investigation into all contributing factors”.  

AFCA says the insurer adopted a “risky strategy” by not providing direct evidence, such as witness statements, regarding the driver’s behaviour before the crash.  

But it is “satisfied in the circumstances of this particular case that it is more likely than not that the complainant was [driving under the influence], and her being so contributed to the collision’s occurrence.  

“It is reasonable to conclude that someone who rarely consumes alcohol, who had not eaten anything substantial for about 24 hours, who had recently lost a large amount of weight and with such a [blood alcohol] level would be affected by alcohol to the point of impairment.”  

The authority also considered whether the doctrine of estoppel – preventing a party from acting inconsistently with previous statements – is applicable, given Allianz initially said it would accept the claim.  

It notes the insurer said it would investigate the claim further and finds it was fair to reverse its decision based on new information.  

Click here for the ruling.

For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine