A dispute between a motorist and his insurance company, Suncorp, over paintwork repairs has been resolved in favour of the insurer, following a formal determination by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
The complaint arose after the vehicle owner made a claim under his comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy when his car was vandalised. While the insurer accepted the claim and paid for the necessary repairs, the customer argued that the repainted panels did not match the rest of the vehicle. He insisted that the insurer either repaint the entire vehicle or rectify the repairs to achieve a uniform finish.
However, the insurer maintained that the work was completed to a professional standard and that any mismatch was due to the car’s pre-existing condition. The vehicle, a 2009 model, had visible deterioration and fading on unrepaired panels, which the insurer said clashed with the freshly painted sections.
An independent review from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) accepted this argument, noting that the repaired panels had a cleaner, glossier appearance compared to the duller, faded finish of the older parts. It was concluded that the mismatch was not due to poor workmanship but rather to the age and wear of the vehicle.
The determination stated that the insurer was only required to fix damage caused by the vandalism and was not liable for pre-existing wear or repainting unaffected panels for aesthetic consistency.
The ruling highlighted that the insurer’s obligations were clearly outlined in the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), which excludes coverage for pre-existing damage and does not require cosmetic matching of undamaged parts.
In its conclusion, the AFCA said that while the outcome was unfortunate for the customer, the insurer had met its obligations and was not required to take further action. The determination reinforced that fairness must be considered within the scope of the policy’s PDS.
The full determination of the case can be found here