A driver has failed to overturn a denied claim after she hit three parked vehicles in the early hours, then failed an alcohol test.

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia said its policy excluded claims where the driver was under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit, and both applied to the woman.

The claimant’s Hyundai Kona hit the other vehicles and flipped onto its roof at 2.30am on December 16 2024. She lodged a claim stating she had fallen asleep at the wheel after attending a wedding and going into the city.

The insurer’s investigator spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and said the complainant was drowsy, erratic, belligerent and “slurring her words a bit”.

She initially refused to take a preliminary breath test, but then agreed. She was “not doing it properly” but on the final attempt – about 30 minutes after the crash – returned a positive reading that was just over the legal limit of 0.05. The officer said she then refused to accompany police to carry out an evidentiary breath test.

An expert for the insurer said it was likely her blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was 0.08 and “the scientific consensus is that driving skills will be impaired at a BAC of 0.05 or above”.

The complainant, who has mental health issues, argued her BAC reading of 0.051 was “borderline” and did not establish that her driving was impaired.

She told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority she drank only water and a mocktail on the night, and she believed one of her drinks was spiked. She also said she was tailgated by a speeding vehicle, which caused her to panic and lose control of her car.

AFCA has acknowledged her concerns but notes that “without any supportive evidence” it cannot be sure the spiking or tailgating occurred.

It is satisfied she was driving under the influence and over the alcohol limit, and “being in either of those states can reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to the collisions”.

AFCA has also denied the woman’s claim for non-financial loss compensation. The complainant argued the insurer failed to take her vulnerability into account and unfairly delayed and denied the claim. But the authority says the insurer’s investigations were “reasonable and sufficiently timely considering the complex issues involved”.

See the full ruling here.