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

ASIC Initiates Legal Proceedings Against Australian Super for Claim Delays 10 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated legal action against Australian Super, the nation's largest superannuation fund, alleging significant delays in processing nearly 7,000 death benefit claims. These delays, some extending up to four years, have raised serious concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the fund's claims handling processes. - read more

Australian Insurers Face Challenges in Risk Preparedness 10 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori Recent findings from PwC's Insurance Banana Skins Survey indicate that Australian insurers are trailing behind their global counterparts in preparedness for emerging risks, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI). - read more

Insurance News to Host Third Annual Conference in Sydney 10 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori Insurance News has announced its third annual conference, scheduled to take place in Sydney on March 19, 2026. This full-day event aims to provide attendees with comprehensive insights into current market trends, industry pressures, and emerging opportunities within the insurance sector. - read more

Rising Home Insurance Costs Amid Climate Change Concerns 10 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori Australians are facing escalating home insurance premiums, with climate change playing a significant role in this upward trend. Insurance Australia Group (IAG) has highlighted that the increasing frequency and severity of weather events are contributing to higher costs for homeowners. - read more