Hollard's initial acceptance of the claim was retracted following this discovery. In contrast, crash information from the other vehicle suggested the incidents happened roughly one minute apart. The insurer's expert highlighted inconsistencies in the impact heights, further pointing out that the vehicle's speed at the time of the incidents did not match the claimant's account.
The insurance policy mandated that coverage only applies to accidents resulting from a single, unexpected event. During a subsequent interview, the claimant acknowledged the possibility of additional impacts due to the car's movement post-collision, yet she was unable to provide a detailed account.
Hollard concluded that these discrepancies, along with expert analysis, indicated deceit on the claimant's part, invalidating her claim. The insured party contested the credibility of the expert report, labelling it misleading. However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) upheld the insurer’s decision, deeming the expert findings as comprehensive and logically structured.
AFCA noted the differing time frames between the vehicles' crash data but asserted this did not undermine Hollard's position. The ombudsman stated he was unconvinced that the damage was the result of a singular accident, aligning instead with the evidence of two distinct impacts.
AFCA's ruling confirmed that regardless of whether the second crash occurred one or 11 minutes after the first, the incidents constituted separate events, leading to the denial of the insurance claim.
