The incident occurred in June 2017 when the glass handling machine tipped over while reversing. A representative from the involved business suggested that the machine's anti-crush functionality might have inadvertently been activated, causing it to lurch and topple under the load of a substantial glass sheet that measured 9.5 metres in height. Speed was also cited as a potential factor.
QBE, the insurer, initially rejected the claim based on assessments from the machine supplier's managing director and their own loss adjuster. These experts contended that the mishap was likely due to the glass panel being lifted off-centre and the boom being set too high during operation.
In contrast, the business's own glass specialist attributed the incident to operator error. Their argument highlighted the challenges in precisely aligning the lifting point with the panel's centre of gravity, particularly as it shifts when the machine rotates.
AFCA's ruling pointed out that, while the glass should normally be lifted at its centre of gravity, as per the machine's manual, the actual situation involved more complex dynamics. The authority found no definitive evidence that not adhering fully to these instructions directly led to the incident, and thus deemed the insurer's exclusion inapplicable. Furthermore, AFCA cast doubt on the supplier's MD's technical conclusions and his potential conflict of interest.
Ultimately, the decision underscores the importance of nuanced technical assessments in insurance disputes and calls for insurers to thoroughly investigate all claims aspects.
Looking forward, this ruling could influence future disputes where operational mishaps intersect with technical manual prescriptions, potentially prompting insurers to revisit their evaluation protocols and company guidance concerning machinery operation claims.
