Account of the case

On 12 November 2022, the Injured Party A had had his vehicle washed at the automated car wash tunnel of X Oy. After the wash, damage was observed in the paintwork of A’s car, and A demanded that X Oy repair his car.

The compensation for the damage to the paintwork of A’s vehicle was applied from the general liability insurance covering X Oy’s operations. According to the notification filed on 26 November 2022 by X Oy, A had bought the most expensive wash among the offered alternatives, and after a couple of weeks from the wash, had noticed scratches in the car paintwork. A told that he had not had his car washed between 12 November and 26 November 2022.

The Insurance Company issued its decision according to which the information provided suggested that the washing equipment had worked normally, and its maintenance and controls had been taken care of through regular inspections and servicing. The last servicing of the equipment had taken place prior to the claimed event on 8 November 2022, and it had been inspected according to normal practice on 12 November 2022 at 9:00 and 17:00, with no deviation being noticed. On that day, several other cars had been washed, and corresponding damage had not been seen in connection with other washing cycles. Based on the above, the Insurance Company finds it clarified that the service corresponded to the product promise and that the service had been performed professionally and carefully. Therefore, X Oy cannot be found to have become liable for the damages as per valid legislation.

Customer’s complaint

A was dissatisfied with the decision of the Insurer and requested that the Insurance Complaints Board issue a recommended solution in his case.

In his complaint, A reports that he had bought the car only two months prior to the visit to X Oy’s automated car wash. A had made a complaint directly to X Oy immediately after noticing the damage. As relates to the damage, A refers to the photos provided. A requires that his car be repaired to the condition it was prior to the car wash.

Reply by the Insurance Company

In its reply, the Insurance Company repeats the history of the case at hand as well as the applicable insurance terms and the valid legislation essential in relation to the case at hand.

The Insurer repeats its opinion given in the earlier decision on the claim and points out that X Oy’s car wash tunnel is inspected a few times a day and serviced, as necessary. On the day of the alleged damage, or 12 November 2022, the car wash tunnel was inspected at about 9:00 and 17:00. The inspection also involved ensuring that there was nothing extra inside the wash tunnel. At the same time, the wash brushes and amount of washing liquid were inspected by visual observation. According to the notification, A’s car passed the wash tunnel at about 17:42. The Company further points out that prior to the alleged damage event, the equipment had been serviced on 8 November 2022, in which case a leaking high-pressure tube had been replaced. After the servicing, the equipment operations had been tested and found to work normally. Neither did the equipment send any error message during the wash or after it. No other notifications of corresponding damage had been received, even though several other cars had been washed in the car wash tunnel on the day of the damage. Had there been some fault in the equipment, other cars should have undergone damage during the same day. In addition, the reply points out that the rotating washing movement of the brushes does not correspond to the long uniform scratches shown by the photos provided by A.

According to the reply, taking all the aspects mentioned above into consideration as well as the fact that A had noticed the car damage only two weeks after the wash, it remains unresolved that the paintwork damage would have been caused as a result of the car wash. Therefore, the Insurance Company finds that X Oy has proved that the service it provided corresponded to what was agreed, and there is no reason to adapt the decision on the claim.

Recommended solution

Formulation of question

In this case the question is whether the insurance company is liable to compensate the damage caused to the car. To resolve the case, the Insurance Complaints Board must establish whether the Policyholder is liable for the damage to A’s car. To make a decision on the liability for the damages, the Board must assess whether the Policyholder can be deemed to have acted with care.

The applicable norms of law and policy terms

According to Chapter 8 Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, in contents, manner of performance and result, the service shall conform to what can be deemed to have been agreed. A service shall be provided with professional skill and care and taking into account the interests of the commissioner. With regard to durability and otherwise, the service shall conform to what the consumer generally has reason to expect in the case of such a service. If the service does not conform to the above, it shall be deemed defective. The burden of proof for the service having been provided with professional skill and care lies with the contractor.

According to the same Chapter, Section 20, the commissioner shall be entitled to compensation for any loss that he suffers for a defect in a service.

The policy terms applicable to the case contain the following:

5. What is covered by the insurance

5.1 Scope

5.1.1 General third liability and products liability

The insurance provides cover for claim for damages for losses in sub-sections 5.1.1.1 – 5.1.1.3 caused to a third party in the conduct of the insured business provided that the insured is legally liable for damages.

5.1.1.1 Bodily injury and property damage

The insurance provides cover for claim for damages for bodily injury and property damage.

Evaluation of the case

Chapter 8 of the Consumer Protection Act on certain consumer services contracts contains provisions on services provided against consideration by a business (contractor) to a consumer which can related to, among others, objects and buildings. The service must be delivered line with what has been agreed, professionally and with care, with due attention to the customer’s interests. Should these requirements not be met, the service has a defect. Moreover, the service has a defect if it does not meet the information given on the service, or if the contractor has neglected to fulfil their liability to provide information to the consumer. When assessing the liability to compensate on the basis of the general liability insurance covering the operations, the starting point is the order agreed upon between the parties as well as the question whether the assignment has been performed with pertinent care. The burden of proof for the service that has been provided with professional skill and care lies with the contractor.

In the case at hand, A has had his car washed at the car wash tunnel of X Oy on 12 November 2022 at 17:42. Later, after two weeks, A noticed that the paintwork of his vehicle contained scratches. According to the information provided to the Insurance Complaints Board, the wash equipment had been serviced on 8 November 2022, in other words four days before the washing of A’s car. On the day of the car wash, the equipment had been inspected at 9:00 and again at 17:00. At the same time the car wash tunnel was inspected, ruling out any extra objects there, and establishing that the washing brushes were in order and that the equipment had sufficient amount of the washing liquid. Moreover, the car wash tunnel was used by hundreds of other cars during a few days, including the day of the event, and no other damages were notified. The equipment was found to have operated without fault prior to the suggested damage and after it.

Based on the description of the washing function, the Complaints Board does not find it possible that almost immediately after the inspection, the equipment would have been subject to particles causing damage and that A’s car would have been the only one suffering such damage. It is also noteworthy that the damage to the paintwork of A’s car was noticed only after almost two weeks after the wash. Based on the information obtained, the Insurance Complaints Board finds that the Policyholder has shown to have acted with care and that the washing equipment operated faultlessly, and therefore the Policyholder is not liable for the damage caused to A’s car.

Final outcome

Based on the above grounds and the information available, the Insurance Complaints Board finds that the decision by the Insurance Company is in line with the policy terms. The Board does not recommend that it be changed.

The Insurance Complaints Board’s decision is unanimous.

INSURANCE COMPLAINTS BOARD

Chairperson Norros
Secretary Hanén
Members:
Haapasaari
Karimäki
Karhu
Korpiola