The dispute began when the owner's 2005 HSV Coupe GTO Z Series succumbed to flames in March of the previous year. RACQ Insurance accepted the total loss and initially valued the vehicle at $68,000.
However, the unsatisfied owner declined this offer, leading to an independent valuation which described the car as being in “good condition for its age and mileage” despite its 315,000km on the odometer.
Although comparable lower-mileage vehicles were advertised above $81,000, the heavy usage severely reduced its collectible appeal, the independent valuer noted. Conclusively, the evaluator deemed the insurer's offer reasonable.
The car owner contested this, alleging RACQ Insurance's assessment was flawed, particularly regarding the engine type and the car's rarity as one of only 60 manual transmission models, asserting its condition was excellent.
In response, RACQ revised their offer to $78,000 factoring in the vehicle's unique modifications and reconditioned engine, but the claimant stood firm in his refusal.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), upon review, sided with the insurer. AFCA deemed RACQ Insurance's valuation and the independent assessment to be “logical, well-considered and helpful.”
According to Glass's Guide referenced by the AFCA, the vehicle's maximum estimated market value could not exceed $58,100, considering its age and mileage. Although rare, evidence was insufficient to justify a $200,000 evaluation.
The AFCA stated, “The complainant has not provided persuasive evidence to demonstrate the vehicle's worth is beyond what the insurer offered. Under such conditions, adjusting the settlement upward would not be justifiable.”
Reference: Original findings from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's ruling were sourced from RACQ Insurance's appeal letter. Read more about the decision here.
