AFCA Supports RAA Insurance in Vehicle Location Dispute

1

The son, who initially filed the claim following an accident in April of the previous year, saw his claim denied by RAA Insurance. The insurance provider, based in South Australia, concluded that the vehicle was a total loss but rejected the claim after discovering the car's purchase and registration in Victoria despite frequent visits to South Australia.

During the claims process, the son portrayed himself as the primary driver, asserting minimal use by his mother, the policyholder. However, he later altered his statements to AFCA, stating that the car was never his and was unregistered in Victoria. AFCA found these new assertions unconvincing due to the lack of documentation supporting his position.

The ombudsman involved in the dispute stated that evidence indicated the vehicle was mainly used, registered, and stored in Victoria at the time the policy was taken out. Consequently, it was determined that the policyholder misrepresented the car's usual location and storage when securing insurance coverage.

RAA Insurance referenced their underwriting standards, emphasizing that they do not extend coverage to vehicles registered outside South Australia or the Broken Hill postcode. A declaration from an RAA employee supported this position, confirming that the vehicle’s Victorian registration would have led to denial of coverage initiation.

AFCA observed that such misrepresentation compromised RAA's risk assessment capabilities, justifying the insurer's decision to decline the claim. The omission of accurate information about the vehicle's storage location led to the policy being issued under false pretenses. AFCA concluded that compelling the insurer to honor the claim would be unjust, given the circumstances.

Published:Thursday, 24th Apr 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more