An insurer must pay a $180,000 motor claim after it failed to convince the industry ombudsman a BMW owner could have safely moved his vehicle before it was submerged by flooding during Cyclone Alfred.

The owner lodged a claim after the vehicle was completely covered by water at his workplace in southeast Queensland in March 2025. It was assessed as a total loss.

HDI Global Specialty declined the claim, arguing the policyholder had failed to take reasonable steps to protect the vehicle after choosing to drive to work despite cyclone warnings and leaving the car at a location it said was flood prone.

The policy contained an exclusion for vehicles not removed from possible harm in the event of flood “where safe circumstances allow”, and another for failure to take reasonable steps to protect the vehicle at the time of, and after an insured event.

AFCA found neither exclusion had been established.

The policyholder said he had been working inside a warehouse and did not become aware of the danger until about 10pm, when he noticed water entering the building.

He said there was a sudden backflow flash flood from nearby drains, despite there being no rain that day, and water rose within minutes after he attempted to move the BMW.

“Continuing to try would have endangered his life” due to the severity and suddenness of the flooding, AFCA’s determination said. He and a colleague called emergency services and were evacuated by police.

AFCA said that even if HDI was correct that the complainant should not have driven to work because of cyclone warnings, that decision occurred before the flood — the insured event that caused the loss — and therefore did not trigger the exclusion concerning removal of the vehicle from possible harm.

It also found the insurer had not provided sufficient evidence about how quickly the flood developed, how the vehicle became submerged or when the complainant should have moved it, to deny the claim.

It rejected HDI's characterisation of the government warnings, accepting the complainant's evidence that they were general advice to stay home or take shelter rather than mandatory road-closure orders. There was no persuasive evidence that he knew his workplace was located on a flood plain.

AFCA also described HDI’s accusations of misrepresentation as “imprudent and unhelpful”.

“The insurer does not adequately explain the basis for the alleged breach of the duty” it said.

Read the full ruling here.