The claim originates from an incident in January when the traveler's belongings, including a bag, were stolen during an overseas trip. In response, SCTI requested a standard consent from the policyholder to acquire "any further information reasonably required" for their investigations.
The claimant, however, raised privacy concerns and proposed a modified consent form. His version mandated that SCTI summarize any information they intended to retrieve and secure written consent before sharing it with third parties.
Insisting on his privacy, the claimant also declined to share his phone number, preferring to handle communications through email, which SCTI found insufficient for the investigation process.
The insurer argued that under the terms and conditions agreed upon by the policyholder at the time of purchase, such an authorization was necessary to ensure comprehensive investigations without any limitations. SCTI warned they could not advance the claim unless the policyholder complied with their request.
On the contrary, the claimant contended that his modifications wouldn't hinder SCTI's access but would merely control the flow of his personal data. He asserted it was unreasonable for SCTI to gather information without his explicit acknowledgment, citing concerns over what he termed as "easily breachable" information.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) sided with the claimant, emphasizing the need to balance the claimant’s privacy with the insurer's requirement for a thorough investigation.
AFCA noted that SCTI’s request was quite broad, lacking specificity about the necessity of each piece of information. The authority pointed out SCTI's failure to demonstrate any substantial prejudice caused by limiting authority over the claimant's information.
"While requesting limited authority/ies from the complainant presents a greater administrative and time burden for the insurer, it has not shown that doing so would inhibit its ability to investigate the claim or is otherwise unworkable or particularly onerous," the ombudsman remarked.
The ombudsman further commented, "In the absence of the insurer providing reasons to the contrary, the complainant is entitled to know the parties to whom information is being provided to and sought from, its scope, and the opportunity to consent to each."
Thus, SCTI cannot delay claim assessments on the grounds of incomplete standard authorization forms, obliging them to provide the claimant with forms that recognize his conditions.
AFCA also determined that while the claimant may continue using email for routine communication, he must supply his phone number or relevant phone records if deemed vital to the investigation. This case underlines the evolving dynamics between privacy rights and corporate processes, as reported by Insurance News.
