The financial services ombudsman has sided with QBE in a dispute involving an uninsured driver who crashed into the insurer’s customer.

The QBE policyholder said she stopped at an intersection to let a fire truck pass, and the other driver hit her from behind.  

QBE deemed the uninsured driver at fault and required him to pay for the repairs.  

The uninsured driver then lodged a case with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, arguing the QBE customer caused the collision. He said he should be paid for damage to his car, and reimbursed payments to the insurer and legal costs.  

He said he was travelling behind the QBE customer when a fire truck that was stationary at the intersection turned on its siren and lights.  

He said the QBE customer had entered the intersection in front of the fire truck but then stopped suddenly.  

The uninsured driver said he was a safe distance behind the woman’s car and could have avoided the crash had she not decided to “slam on [the] brakes in peak-hour traffic”.  

AFCA notes there is no dashcam footage of the smash, and that a statement from the Queensland Fire Department, which the complainant provided, said the incident was “likely caused as a reaction to seeing [the fire truck] with lights and sirens on a blind corner”.  

It acknowledges the insured driver appears to have “stopped suddenly and failed to give adequate warning”.  

However, it says that according to road rules, the complainant needed to be a “sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front ... so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision”.  

An AFCA adjudicator added: “Had the complainant been travelling [at] a safe distance ... he would likely have been able to stop and avoid hitting the insured driver (even if the insured driver failed to provide a stop signal for long enough, in accordance with section 53(2) of the road rules).  

“I acknowledge the complainant’s position that it is not reasonable to expect a driver to travel in a manner that allows for any vehicle to violate any road rule at any time.

“However, this does not alleviate the complainant of his obligation to travel a safe distance from the insured driver.”  

AFCA says both drivers contributed to the crash and it would not be fair for the insurer to cover damage to the complainant’s car.  

The authority cannot award compensation for legal fees or the amount paid to QBE, saying this is outside its jurisdiction. But it says it is fair for the insurer to pay $500 for misleading statements suggesting each party would “bear their own costs”.  

Click here for the ruling. 

From the latest Insurance News magazine: Why motoring clubs are pumping the brakes on their insurance operations