Driver who left sunroof open in wet weather loses claim dispute

The owner of a car damaged by rain when she left the sunroof open has lost a claim dispute over a warped seat, electrical damage and a smell in the vehicle.

The November 2020 claim was accepted by Suncorp which assessed the car and completed a detailed clean. The following March, she contacted Suncorp’s assessor and said the full extent of water damage had not been addressed.

After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a report from the customer about her concerns for many weeks, the car was towed to Suncorp’s mechanic on April 28 who concluded the general condition of the car was below average for its age and distance travelled.

The mechanic found no sign of water or water staining on the carpet in the area of the foot well, and identified various issues with the car, including a windscreen crack, lights not working, front left wheel damage with the rim painted a different colour, the front leather seats deteriorating, oil leaks and a leak at the power steering pump, low tread and uneven wear on tyres and issues with the fog and interior lights.

“No information I have relates the current codes in the vehicle system to water entry or water damage,” the report said. “Nothing has been seen to suggest water entry has damaged any parts of the vehicle.”

Suncorp concluded the existing damage was not caused by water entry. Rather, it said the claimed damage was mechanical or electronic failure or wear and tear – all causes specifically excluded under the policy. It declined the claim.

The policyholder took the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), saying the full extent of the rain damage had not been addressed as the car seat warping, electrical damage and a persistent smell were all caused by the October 31 2020 storm.

AFCA ruled she had not established that the claimed damage fell within the policy terms.

“I am satisfied that the complainant has not established that the claimed damage was caused by an ‘insured incident’ as defined in the policy. Accordingly, the complainant has not established a valid claim within the policy terms,” the ombudsman said.

The policy covered accidental damage caused by an incident such as hail, storm and flood, and collision and impact, and said when making a claim “you must be able to prove that an incident insured by your policy actually took place. If you do not do this, we will not be able to pay your claim.”

It defined insured incident as “a single event, accident or occurrence which you did not intend or expect to happen”.

Suncorp said the damage in dispute was not the result of water ingress but was consistent with mechanical and electrical failure and general wear and tear.

See the full ruling here.