The ordeal began when the woman's 2013 Holden mysteriously disappeared from her street in November 2023. Despite promptly informing the police, the car was not recovered. The insurer, IAG, viewed the situation with skepticism due to the claimant's financial situation and contested the validity of the claim.
IAG's skepticism was based on an external investigation, which highlighted that the policyholder was unemployed, received Centrelink support, and had a limited bank balance. These financial conditions appeared to IAG as motives for a dishonest claim, particularly with the vehicle's insurance valued at $30,800—deemed excessive by the insurer.
Additionally, the investigator noted the police's possibility that the car might have simply been misplaced instead of stolen, and pointed out discrepancies in the claimant's account regarding the car keys and her partner's observations of the theft incident.
IAG found further support from a forensic locksmith's opinion. The expert argued that the Holden's dual factory immobilisation made it an unlikely target for auto theft.
Countering the accusations, the car owner maintained her innocence, highlighting her full cooperation with both the insurer and the police. She attributed any errors in her statements to confusion and stress, exacerbated by personal difficulties, including domestic violence.
The claimant also clarified that any prior damage to the vehicle was minor and that she had been planning repairs. Stress and relationship issues had delayed these plans. She explained that her speculation on the vehicle's possible whereabouts stemmed from the local reputation for abandoned cars.
After examining the details, AFCA determined that IAG's fraud assertions lacked substantial proof, emphasizing no clear evidence from both the police and the locksmith that implicated the claimant in the theft.
AFCA's ombudsman acknowledged minor discrepancies in the testimonies from the claimant and her partner but dismissed them as common and insufficient to substantiate a fraud claim.
The ruling ordered IAG to process the insurance claim and address $3000 in compensation for the stress induced by their claims management approach. AFCA stated, “The insurer’s accusations of dishonesty were serious yet unsupported, leading to unwarranted distress for the complainant.”
The case highlights the need for thorough evidence before allegations of fraud are asserted. Engaging with policyholders in good faith remains pivotal to fair claims handling. This incident, originally reported by Insurance News, underscores the importance of compassionate and evidence-based claim assessments.
