Customer Wins in Insurance Dispute Over Laser Equipment
Customer Wins in Insurance Dispute Over Laser Equipment
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
In a recent ruling, a salon owner successfully contested a claim with her insurance provider concerning a dispute over a laser machine.
This case highlights significant issues around insurance policy interpretation and customer rights.
The crux of the dispute arose when the salon's laser machine broke down in February, and repair costs were estimated at $18,069. The salon owner had insured the machine for $50,000 in December of the previous year, following its second-hand purchase and refurbishment in 2012 for $66,000.
Despite acknowledging the damage, QBE Insurance reduced its compensation to $7,286, citing an underinsurance clause. QBE claimed that due to the model being discontinued, a replacement would necessitate insuring at $155,000.
The insurer's clause stipulated that if the sum insured was less than 80% of the "total new replacement value," the liability could be adjusted accordingly. However, the salon owner challenged this assessment, arguing that a comparable refurbished machine was valued between $30,000 and $45,000.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) intervened, siding with the salon owner. AFCA declared that policy wording began ambiguous, noting discrepancies in terms such as "full value" and "total new replacement value", creating confusion about the clause's intent.
AFCA clarified: "When the policy is read as a whole, it indicates the laser should be insured for its full value, or what it would cost to replace with a similar laser in a similar condition." They refuted QBE's expectation that the salon owner should have insured the laser for $155,000, indicating she would never recoup more than $50,000 under policy terms.
This ruling mandates QBE to cover the repair costs, less the policy’s deductible. The case emphasizes the importance of clarity in insurance contracts and equitable treatment of claims.
Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.
PSC Insurance Brokers’ investment in MA Insurance Brokers is a timely reminder that transport insurance in Australia is becoming more specialised, more relationship-driven and more closely tied to claims performance. The deal, announced on 25 June 2026, sees MA begin operating as PSC Transport Insurance Brokers, with founders Barry Mathison and Mariann Illyes remaining involved as managing principals. - read more
A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has underlined a point that is easy to overlook when buying personal insurance: a serious diagnosis does not always mean a policy benefit will be payable. The ruling, reported on 29 June 2026, involved a claimant who sought benefits after being diagnosed with high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Although the illness was serious and required treatment, AFCA found the insurer was entitled to rely on the specific wording of the policy. - read more
A new review by the General Insurance Code Governance Committee has put renewal pricing transparency back under the spotlight, with findings that matter well beyond home and motor policies. For Australian boat owners, the message is simple: when your policy renewal arrives, the payment frequency can be just as important as the headline premium. - read more
IAG’s latest investment through Firemark Ventures is a useful signal for Australian business owners: disaster recovery is no longer just about paying claims after the event. It is increasingly about helping people and enterprises stay operational, connected and on-site while rebuilding happens around them. - read more
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.