Insurers Ordered to Compensate Despite Theft Claim Doubts
Insurers Ordered to Compensate Despite Theft Claim Doubts
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:
| Markel's New Professional Indemnity Insurance Solutions for Australian Professionals 05 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori In April 2024, Markel, a US-based specialty insurer, unveiled a suite of professional indemnity (PI) insurance products specifically designed for the Australian market. These offerings cater to professionals in accounting, construction, design and construct, insurance, media, and miscellaneous sectors. - read more |
| APRA's Regulatory Action on Pacific International Insurance's Binder Management 05 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori In November 2024, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) directed Pacific International Insurance to increase its prudential capital requirement by $10 million. This action was taken in response to identified deficiencies in the insurer's oversight and control of its binder arrangements with intermediary partners. - read more |
| Australian Small Businesses Advocate for Insurance Premium Reforms 05 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori In October 2025, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in collaboration with the Insurance Council of Australia, released a report highlighting the significant challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to soaring insurance premiums. The report emphasizes that many SMEs are compelled to either forgo insurance coverage or reduce their policies to remain financially viable in a challenging economic environment. - read more |
| Consumer Credit Insurance Decision: AFCA Rules Against Refund Request 04 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori An Australian man seeking a refund on his paid premium for consumer credit insurance (CCI) has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). The man argued the insurance was mis-sold to him, claiming he was led to believe the coverage was essential when he acquired it with his credit card in 2015. - read more |
| 5 Common Misconceptions About Income Protection Insurance in Australia Income protection insurance is a vital safety net for many Australians, offering financial stability when unexpected circumstances like illness or injury occur. Despite its importance, there are numerous misconceptions surrounding this type of insurance, leading to confusion and inadequate coverage among consumers. - read more
|
| How Life Insurance Provides Financial Security for Your Loved Ones Life insurance is a crucial part of any comprehensive financial plan, providing peace of mind that your loved ones will be financially secure in the event of your passing. - read more
|
| Why Income Protection Insurance is Vital for Your Financial Security Income protection insurance is a type of coverage that provides you with a financial safety net in case you are unable to work due to illness or injury. It typically pays up to 75% of your regular salary, helping you to continue meeting your financial obligations during difficult times. - read more
|
| Decoding Disability: How Your Policy's Definition Affects Your Security In the quest for economic stability and peace of mind, income security stands as a critical foundation. The assurance that one can rely on a stable financial inflow, regardless of life's unpredictabilities, is what keeps many individuals focused on their present while confidently planning for their future. However, the seldom-discussed intricacies of disability definitions within insurance policies can significantly influence this security. - read more
|
An insurance carrier may reserve the "right of subrogation" in the event of a loss. This means that the company may choose to take action to recover the amount of a claim paid to a covered insured if the loss was caused by a third party.