Insurers Ordered to Compensate Despite Theft Claim Doubts

10

The policyholder filed a claim two days after her vehicle was reported stolen on March 23, 2022. She recounted purchasing the car from a friend, who is a certified motor mechanic, and leaving it at their house for servicing.

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia had raised numerous concerns about the circumstances surrounding the theft. These included a lack of proof of purchase and incomplete information about the vehicle's service history. The car was insured despite the new owner not driving it, which also raised suspicions. In addition, the friend did not cooperate with the insurer’s inquiries.

AFCA responded by stating that it is common for individuals to not have a purchase receipt when buying a vehicle privately. They accepted the bank statements showing a $35,000 transaction labeled "AA-Van" as adequate evidence of payment. They also acknowledged that service history details may have been in the vehicle at the time of theft.

The ruling emphasized that purchasing insurance was logical as it included coverage for non-driving events such as theft. While cooperation from the mechanic friend would have aided the investigation, it was not deemed a sufficient reason to reject the claim.

Concerns were also raised by the insurer about why the car remained with the friend for over nine months and inconsistencies in the car’s documented compliance and build dates. AFCA found no definitive reason for the extended storage but accepted explanations, such as Melbourne's lockdown and the complainant’s husband's health issues, as plausible.

The authority acknowledged a confusing situation regarding date inconsistencies but noted that the vehicle identification number (VIN) was consistent across documentation, thus confirming ownership and associated loss.

“Although it seems unlikely that a certified motor vehicle tester would make an error in the build date, it’s not an implausible mistake to make,” commented AFCA’s adjudicator.

Given all evidence, AFCA concluded that the complainant should be recognized as the owner who suffered a financial loss, and they instructed Insurance Manufacturers of Australia to accept the claim and process the payout.

For more details on the original case and ruling, refer to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s documentation.

Published:Monday, 29th Jul 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Strengthening Agricultural Insurance: Rural Affinity and Munich Re's Renewed Partnership 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori Rural Affinity has renewed its partnership with Munich Re Specialty - Global Markets under a new five-year agreement, continuing a collaboration that began in 2006. This renewed alliance aims to support Rural Affinity's efforts to expand its agricultural insurance offerings across Australia and introduce new products leveraging technology and innovation. - read more

AFCA Mandates Insurer Payout for Engine Overheating Incident 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a truck owner whose insurance claim was initially denied following an engine overheating incident. This decision underscores the complexities surrounding insurance claims related to driver negligence and mechanical failures. - read more

AFCA Supports Insurer in Truck Theft Claim Denial 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently upheld an insurer's decision to deny a truck theft claim, citing misrepresentation of the insured's insurance history. This ruling highlights the critical importance of accurate disclosure when obtaining insurance coverage. - read more

AFCA Sides with Freight Company in Dangerous Goods Disclosure Case 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a freight company in a dispute over the disclosure of transporting dangerous goods. This decision provides valuable insights into the obligations of transport companies regarding insurance disclosures. - read more