Driver with worn tyres who lost control in downpour wins dispute

A Queensland-based driver of a 4WD car with tyres that were almost a decade old has won a claim dispute after he slid into a wall while swerving to avoid a cat in heavy rain.

The man lodged a claim under his Suncorp motor policy after the accident a year ago. Suncorp refused it, saying the tyres were unroadworthy and contributed to the accident.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled the insurer “fell short” in seeking to prove that unroadworthy tyres were a cause of the accident. It said there were issues with evidence from Suncorp’s specialist automotive forensic expert on the cause of the accident.

“The insurer has been unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that the extent to which the tyres were unroadworthy was a causal factor for the accident,” AFCA said.

“There are too many other potential factors such as the relative skill of the driver, the evasive action taken to avoid the cat on the roadway, the fact the vehicle was slightly above the speed limit, but most significantly the effect of torrential rain.”

In a report made five weeks after the accident, Suncorp’s forensic expert found the front and rear tyres had less than the minimum required tread depth of 1.5mm, with sections less than 1mm, and said the vehicle was therefore not in a roadworthy condition and the worn tyres increased the distance required to stop the vehicle.

“With no other identified factors at play, the combination of the worn tyres and wet road caused a loss of directional control. The worn condition of the tyres was a significant causation factor and were capable of contributing to the collision,” the expert report said.

AFCA’s ombudsman said it was not clear that the tyres could be properly described as “worn out.”

“It may be that the complainant has been slow in replacing the nearside tyres, however I am not satisfied the complainant has breached his responsibilities,” the ruling said. “Nor am I satisfied any such breach by itself would entitle the insurer as an exercise of discretion to decline the claim.”

The driver produced a Queensland Government Safety Certificate issued in November 2020 which had a tick to indicate the tyres passed inspection, as well as an invoice for a “major service” carried out the next day and an invoice for a wheel alignment done four months before the accident.

Suncorp said the vehicle had travelled an additional 9265 kilometres after the roadworthy inspection but AFCA said the insurer had been unable to prove the extent to which the tyres were unroadworthy was a causal factor for the accident.

AFCA’s ombudsman said Suncorp’s forensic expert report was “very helpful but ultimately, I am unable to accept the opinions it expresses on causation”.

“There seems little doubt … sections of tread on the two nearside tyres were less than the legal minimum. However, it is unscientific and fraught with error to conclude that because a vehicle should have been able to drive around a bend without mishap that worn tyres were the cause,” the ruling said.

Suncorp’s expert had no engineering or physics qualifications, did not attend or inspect the accident location, was not briefed on the direction travelled by the vehicle, and made no reference to the incline of the road, pooling or movement of water, the weight and handling characteristics of the specific type of 4WD, or the owner’s driving experience, it said.