The issue arose when the director reported a crash involving his Audi and another vehicle in June 2023. QBE doubted the legitimacy of the claim, citing discrepancies in the director's account and pointing to questionable financial motives due to the Audi's insurance coverage of $25,800. Additionally, the director's refusal to supply bank and phone records and inconsistencies in his timeline further raised concerns.
Furthermore, a mechanical engineer's report suggested that the damage did not align with a vehicular collision, but rather implied contact with a stationary object like a pole. Nonetheless, the director challenged both the engineer’s findings and the relevance of QBE’s requests, given that the third party had already admitted fault in the incident.
After examining the case, AFCA concluded that evidence was insufficient to prove the fraud. The director's consistent income and an assessment by the insurer’s own evaluator, suggesting the damage matched the reported accident, weakened QBE's claims of deceit.
AFCA has instructed QBE to reinstate the director’s insurance policy, reopening the claim upon submission of the required bank and phone records. These documents are deemed crucial by AFCA for thoroughly assessing the claim's background and any financial incentives.
In a separate complaint, the director opposed QBE's decision to auction off the Audi for $900, claiming he hadn't authorized the sale and that the price fell short of the vehicle's estimated salvage value of $1500. However, AFCA sided with QBE, stating that the director was adequately informed and given considerable time to retrieve the vehicle. No compensation for the auction sale discrepancy was deemed necessary, though the director would be entitled to these proceeds if the claim ultimately gets denied.
The ruling emphasizes the critical role of transparency and thorough documentation in insurance claims. As the case progresses, both parties will need to adhere to AFCA's directions to ensure a fair resolution.
