The crux of the AFCA's ruling rested on the lack of evidence indicating the claimant's ownership of the engine, thereby negating any financial loss acknowledged under the policy. According to an AFCA ombudsman, even if ownership was established, the engine's status—intended but not installed—did not align with the policy’s definitions of 'vehicle' or 'modifications.'
Furthermore, the complainant had not opted for an additional policy benefit that could extend the cover to spare parts awaiting assembly into the insured vehicle. As a result, the claim for engine theft remains outside the current policy's provisions.
The insured also sought assistance from IAG to recover costs from the repairer, a request AFCA deemed inappropriate, emphasizing that issues pertaining to the repairer fell outside the scope of his insurance contract. This path remains a private matter between the claimant and the repairer involved.
This case highlights the critical importance for policyholders to thoroughly understand the intricacies and limitations of their insurance policies, particularly regarding coverage for vehicle components not yet integrated into the car. It demonstrates the necessity for explicit policy terms and the potential need for additional cover options to protect significant investments like spare parts.
The decision may prompt individual insurers and the wider insurance market to reassess coverage options related to spare parts and modifications to align with consumer expectations and reduce disputes. Policyholders are advised to consult their insurers to ensure adequate coverage, especially when dealing with valuable customizations or restorations. This incident serves as a valuable reminder to scrutinize insurance policies closely and engage with insurers proactively to clarify available coverage options.
