The case involves a claimant who purchased a 2013 Range Rover Dynamic for $41,750 from a private seller on June 2nd of the previous year. Tragically, the vehicle caught fire and was deemed a total loss on the same day he picked it up.
Believing his new car was covered, the man submitted a claim to Allianz for the agreed value of $105,950, under a policy initiated the day of the incident. Initially, Allianz seemed to agree to the settlement amount; however, an investigation revealed a discrepancy in the model description.
The claimant had listed his vehicle as the more luxurious and costly 2013 Range Rover Autobiography MY14.5 model when, in fact, it was a Range Rover Dynamic. This misdescription resulted in an overinflated insured value.
As a result, Allianz recalculated the vehicle's worth and offered to settle the claim for a revised value of $66,630. After deducting remaining premiums and excess, the final payout amounted to $58,979.
The vehicle owner argued that he made an "innocent misrepresentation" because the insurer’s website provided a model with an outdated engine when he searched using his car's registration. He claimed he selected the Autobiography MY14.5 model since it had a similar engine type.
"I opted for the only model with my engine type and MY14.5 badging," the man explained to the complaints authority. "The website's labeling was incorrect and misled me."
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority concluded that while the policyholder's situation was understandable, it did not excuse the inaccurate car description, which breached policy terms.
"I acknowledge the complainant's challenge in finding his exact car model on the insurer's online policy platform," an AFCA ombudsman commented. "However, this does not justify misrepresenting the car's specification."
The AFCA stressed the importance of accurate car descriptions in insurance agreements, advising policyholders to make additional inquiries if unable to find the right model online.
This ruling reinforces Allianz's right to adjust the settlement based on a common law precedent, affirming the fairness of the insurer’s reduced offer. The case highlights the critical nature of precise data input when setting up insurance policies.
For further insights, the original article can be found on the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's website.
