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:

Insurance News

Australian Insurers Navigate AI Disruption Fears 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In recent weeks, Australia's leading insurance companies, including Insurance Australia Group (IAG), Suncorp (SUN), and QBE Insurance (QBE), have experienced notable declines in their share prices. This downturn is largely attributed to growing investor concerns about the potential disruptive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the traditional insurance business model. - read more

Rising Premiums Challenge Australian Insurers in 2026 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In 2026, Australian insurers are grappling with significant challenges as premium affordability becomes a pressing concern. A recent survey by Gallagher Bassett highlights that 70% of insurers have reported increased claim costs and frequencies over the past year. This surge is largely attributed to escalating climate-related losses and inflationary pressures affecting materials and labour costs. - read more

AI-Driven Cyber Insurance Now Available for Australian SMEs 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a significant development for Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Zurich has partnered with US-based cyber insurance specialist Cowbell to introduce an AI-driven cyber insurance product tailored for businesses with annual turnovers up to $100 million. This collaboration marks a pivotal step in enhancing cyber resilience among Australian SMEs. - read more

AFCA Rules in Favor of Restaurant in Arson Insurance Dispute 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a landmark decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has directed an insurer to honor an arson-related claim for a restaurant, despite the non-disclosure of the director's criminal history during the policy's inception. This ruling underscores the complexities surrounding disclosure obligations and the interpretation of policy terms. - read more