Truck spill sparks danger disclosure row
A freight company whose truck crashed and spilt dangerous goods has won a dispute over disclosure.
The truck rear-ended a car on March 20 last year, and its load fell onto the road. The material was removed, cleaned and stored.
ATL Insurance Group said it would not have offered cover under its commercial motor policy if the claimant had “correctly disclosed” it transported dangerous goods.
The policy, starting on December 17 2023, was bought through an online system accessible to the company’s broker.
A “freight task selection” section had a drop-down box that asked about the “primary” task, with dangerous goods and other options offered. An applicant could also provide a secondary freight task.
The claimant selected “deliveries – wholesale (non-containerised)” without adding a second task.
The insurer said the company breached its disclosure duty by failing to select the dangerous goods option.
| More from AFCA: Insurer in hot water after flexi-pipe dispute |
The claimant was transporting 5640 litres of class 8 dangerous goods – “corrosives”, according to international standards – at the time of the accident and advertised itself as a specialist in the area, and the insured vehicle had been licensed for dangerous goods since February 7 2022, ATL said.
The haulage company argued it was delivering general freight only when it applied for the policy. It said dangerous goods amounted to about 10% of its cartage, and generally its dangerous goods were accompanied by pallet/wholesale goods.
The online application form did not ask a specific question about dangerous goods, the claimant said.
In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says vehicle licensing to transport dangerous goods and advertising of that fact is not proof the company actually did so when the policy was issued.
“The policy application process also provides no guidance as to what type of freight tasks should be disclosed,” it says. “For instance, if transporting dangerous goods was simply an incidental, or minor, part of the business, it is far from clear this needed to be disclosed.”
The accident fell within the policy terms and the insurer should cover the complainant up to the policy limits, AFCA says.
The decision is available here.