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.
HESTA, a prominent Australian superannuation fund, has unveiled a significant reduction in insurance fees, set to take effect from 1 July 2026. This initiative aims to make insurance coverage more accessible and affordable for its members, aligning with the fund's commitment to enhancing member benefits. - read more
Hostplus, a leading Australian superannuation fund, has announced the extension of its group insurance partnership with MetLife Australia until June 2028. This strategic move aims to elevate the servicing models across claims and underwriting, ultimately delivering stronger outcomes for Hostplus members. - read more
The International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) has recently highlighted the resilience of marine insurers in the face of escalating conflicts in the Middle East. Despite the challenging geopolitical landscape, insurers continue to provide essential coverage for cargo, hull, liability, and offshore energy sectors, ensuring that global trade flows remain protected. - read more
Severe Tropical Cyclone Narelle, which struck Northern Australia in March 2026, has brought to the forefront the escalating challenges in securing marine hull insurance in regions like Northern Queensland and Western Australia. The cyclone's path, impacting both the Northern Territory and the northwest of Western Australia, exemplifies the increasing volatility of weather patterns and their profound implications for the marine insurance sector. - read more