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.
