Page 16 - Australasian Paint & Panel magazine Jul-Aug 2021

16
News • In Focus
A
PAINT&PANEL JULY / AUGUST 2021
WWW.PAINTANDPANEL.COM.AU
AFCA SIDES WITH SUNCORP
IN A RECENT DISPUTED CASE, AFCA HAS SIDED WITH SUNCORP WHO DID NOT WANT TO PAY A ‘CHOICE’ REPAIRER WHAT THEY HAD QUOTED. THIS HAS SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE MEDIATION.
on an apparent reduced labour rate is a breach of utmost good faith.
AFCA accepts the complainant retains the choice of who does the work on his vehicle. The insurer has not insisted that he have the vehicle repaired through PS (preferred supplier). It mere- ly says (subject to the policy conditions) it is not obliged to pay more than what PS quoted to repair the vehicle.
This means the complainant may still elect to have the chosen shop repair the vehicle. PA will have to either match PS’s quote or come to an arrangement with the complainant for any additional amount it considers should be paid.
The insurer’s approach
and insistence on an apparent reduced labour rate is a breach of utmost good faith.
The AFCA adjudicator concluded: “There is no evidence the insurer’s posi- tion is unfair or unreasonable. PS (pre- ferred supplier) is willing to do the work to industry standard at a reduced price compared to the PA quote. This is the es- sence of competitive quoting. PA (chosen repairer) is at liberty to match this offer if it chooses. It evidently elected not to. Pursuant to the terms of the policy, the insurer is entitled to rely on the PS quote as a basis for settlement.
“The complainant says this rate is too low and not reasonable, but the fact that PS is willing to do the work for the ad- justed rate says this is not the case.”
DRIVER HAD HIS CAR VANDAL-
ised and wanted it to be re- paired by a repairer of their choice and accordingly had
stipulated choice of repairer with their Suncorp policy. The complainant obtained a quote to re- pair his vehicle for $16,448.71. The in- surer says it attempted to negotiate (as- sess and adjust) the value of this quote with the preferred repairer who refused. Its internal review of the quote adjusted it to $8,305.46. One of Suncorps's pre- ferred repairers submitted a quote for $14,421.56. After assessment by the in- surer, it says the fair amount to repair the insured vehicle is $8,656.46. The preferred shop agreed to repair the in- sured vehicle for this amount. To read this PA is chosen repairer and PS is the
insurer's preferred supplier.
The complainant says the process un-
dertaken by the insurer is unfair. It should authorise repairs to the com- plainant’s chosen repairer. Instead, it has relied on its own quote and tried to
impose an unreasonable labour rat do the repair work.
AFCA EXPLAINS WHY
AFCA said the outcome was fair b cause: “The insurer has complied with the terms of its policy and will permit the complainant the option to use his nominated repairer. It simply will not pay more than what its repairer says it will cost to do the work. There is no evi- dence the insurer’s quote is insufficient or not viable. The insurer says this re- pairer is prepared to do the work and will provide a lifetime guarantee on the quality of the work.
The complainant believes the insurer’s position is unreasonable. In summary, he says: “the choice of repairer option should permit the complainant to choose who does the work and that the insurer has not been transparent about the labour rate it will allow for the repair of the vehicle.
There is no evidence to show the PA quote is not ‘reasonable’ as outlined in the policy.
The insurer’s approach and insistence
e to
e-