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 specialist transport insurance advice is becoming increasingly valuable in a tighter, more complex market. The deal, announced in late June 2026, sees MA begin operating as PSC Transport Insurance Brokers, while founders Barry Mathison and Mariann Illyes retain an equity stake and continue leading the business as managing principals. - read more
QBE’s decision to stop offering its standalone office and trade pack products from July 2026 is a timely reminder for Australian tradies to treat every renewal as more than a simple rollover. The insurer is moving customers towards a standard business cover structure, with existing trade pack policyholders expected to be offered the replacement product at renewal from October 2026. - read more
Road user charging is moving from policy theory to a more serious industry conversation, with a new ITS Australia survey pointing to growing support for replacing fuel excise with a distance-based funding model. For transport operators, this is not just a tax discussion. It could change how fleets calculate running costs, compare vehicle types and plan margins on long-term freight contracts. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely warning for trade businesses that rely on tools, trailers and mobile equipment every day. The dispute centred on a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after discovering the claim was limited by the portable items section of the policy. - read more
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.