Insurer Prevails in Fraudulent Rental Claim Dispute

2

The claimant asserted the lot was leased to a company as a conference facility, incurring a monthly rent of $3300, but became uninhabitable due to water damage. While QBE compensated the water damage, initially declining the rental loss claim, they later approved it after a review, disbursing $31,818 from January to October 2022.

However, concerns about the rental claim's legitimacy were raised by the owners' corporation, prompting further investigation. The claimant had provided a formal lease agreement purportedly made on October 1, 2021, but the incorporation of the tenant company occurred almost six months later. The claimant's director admitted the written lease was backdated in tandem with the claim submission, originally having only a verbal agreement, believing the document was necessary for the claim's success.

Furthermore, a rental ledger indicated payments for October through December 2021, which the director later conceded were never made, fabricated to bolster claim acceptance. QBE branded these actions as attempts to unjustly secure entitlements, enabling them to retrieve $46,830 in payments and costs.

Despite opposing the fraud accusation, stating the ledger mistake was not intended to mislead, AFCA concluded the claim was deceptive. They highlighted misrepresentations regarding the timeline of the lease agreement and rent payments as intentional efforts to deceive the insurer. Given the rent claim constituted a major part of the payout, AFCA deemed it justifiable for QBE to reclaim funds.

This resolution underscores the stringent expectations on claim accuracy and integrity, flagging potential repercussions for misleading insurance practices.

Published:Monday, 17th Mar 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Court Denies E-Scooter Negligence Allegation Against City Council 14 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori An Australian court recently ruled in favour of the City of Joondalup, rejecting a negligence claim lodged by an injured e-scooter rider. The Western Australia District Court found the city not liable for an accident involving insurance broker Kirstin Leibbrandt, who collided with a fence post while riding an e-scooter in the Perth suburb of Hillarys. - read more

Mental Health Surpasses Other Causes in TPD Claims, Doubling Payouts Over Five Years 14 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori Recent findings from the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) reveal that mental health issues have become the primary cause of Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claims. Insurers disbursed nearly twice the amount for such claims in 2024 compared to five years prior. This data originates from the CALI and KPMG's Cause of Claims Results Report, highlighting a significant shift in the nature of insurance claims. - read more

Impact of Trump Tariffs on Global Insurance Industry 11 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori According to Swiss Re’s latest Sigma report, the growth of property and casualty premiums is moderating in both Australia and globally. This moderation is primarily driven by a slowdown in rate hikes. Additionally, the Trump administration's America First trade policy is putting further pressure on the insurance sector. - read more

Navigating Changes in Australia's Life Insurance Advice Landscape 10 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The conversation on the shifting dynamics in Australia's life insurance advice sector featured Zurich Australia's head of adviser channel, Kieran Forde, and Hayes & Co director, Katherine Hayes. They engaged with editor Chris Dastoor to spotlight the current market conditions and future prospects for financial advisers in this domain. - read more

ASIC Challenges Federal Court's 'Fair Term' Ruling 09 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is appealing a Federal Court decision regarding the wording of a 'pre-existing condition' clause in certain HCF Life insurance products. The court previously determined that while the wording had the potential to mislead consumers, it did not constitute an unfair contract term under the current laws set out in the ASIC Act 2001. - read more