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

AFCA Upholds Policyholder's Income Protection Benefits Against Zurich 12 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled against Zurich Insurance, instructing the insurer to maintain the current income protection benefits for a policyholder after an 11-year delay in proposing a reduction. This decision underscores the critical importance of timely and transparent communication between insurers and their clients. - read more

Neos Recognized as Leading Income Protection Insurer in 2025 12 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori In the 2025 Life Insurance Awards presented by Money Magazine, Neos has been honored as the top provider in the Income Protection Insurance category. This accolade reflects Neos's commitment to delivering comprehensive and reliable income protection solutions to Australians. - read more

Northern Australian Marinas Struggle with Rising Insurance Costs 12 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori Marina operators in Northern Australia are confronting a significant crisis as insurance premiums escalate dramatically, with some experiencing increases exceeding 300% over recent years. This surge in costs is placing immense financial strain on the industry, prompting urgent calls for government intervention. - read more

GT Insurance Provides Flexible Solutions Amid Global Trade Shifts 12 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori As global trade dynamics undergo significant shifts, GT Insurance is reaffirming its commitment to supporting marine clients navigating these challenges. The recent imposition of US tariffs—25% on Australian steel and aluminium, and 10% on other exported goods—has introduced new uncertainties for local exporters, particularly in sectors like beef and bulk freight. These tariffs, effective from April 5, 2025, have prompted concerns about declining export volumes and reduced freight margins. - read more