A business will be covered for damage to machinery it owned, despite the company that hired and operated it failing to follow all safety instructions.

The claimant said the glass panel lifting machine – a Winlet 575 Glass Robot – was damaged in June 2017 when its stabiliser broke while it was being reversed, causing it to tip over.  

A representative from the business suggested the machine’s anti-crush mechanism might have accidentally triggered, causing it to lurch forward and tip under the weight of the 9.5m-tall glass sheet it was carrying. He also said the machine might have been moving too quickly.    

Insurer QBE, rejecting the claim, cited the machine supplier’s MD, who said the lift probably toppled because the panel was lifted offset from its centre of gravity while the boom was at full elevation.  

The insurer’s loss adjuster backed these findings.  

The business’ glass expert said the topple was due to operator error. They also argued it was not always possible to lift a panel from its centre of gravity, because it shifted as the machine turned.  

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the machine’s user manual clearly stated glass should be lifted “at its centre of gravity and in the centre”.

It also notes the machine’s centre lifting yoke had a maximum height of 3.6m – well short of the glass panel’s height.  

The authority adds the use of suction caps about one-third of the way down the panel was not in line with the manual’s recommendations.

However, it is unclear if failure to follow the manual directly caused the accident, meaning the insurer cannot apply the relevant exclusion.  

AFCA says the supplier’s MD does not appear to have enough technical expertise to determine the likely cause, and it questions the independence of his observations, because machine failures could have exposed his company to financial risk.    

The authority also notes the insurer failed to address the operator’s suggestion the stabiliser broke.

See the ruling here.