The theft occurred on October 14 when the vehicle and trailer were stored at a parking lot outside the complainant's repairer's shop. The complainant claims to have checked on the items regularly after storing them at the location on October 3.
The complainant explains that he had placed the trailer and jet ski at the car park due to his ongoing home moving process. He believed the location was safe as it was near a main road and other expensive boats, and he had secured the items with a lock.
However, Club Marine, the insurer, declined the claim, citing their policy exclusions for losses when a vehicle is left unattended without reasonable precautions against theft.
The insurer argues that the trailer had been left at an "unsecure" parking lot for 11 days. They point out that the complainant did not know who owned the lot and there was no CCTV monitoring. Additionally, they highlight that although the trailer had a towbar lock and hook lock, it was easily movable.
Club Marine states that the complainant demonstrated "a lack of prudence and caution" by not taking reasonable steps to protect the items from the risk of theft.
The complainant acknowledges the risk of leaving the vehicle unattended but believes he took reasonable precautions. He argues that the policy requirements were strict and resulted in a low probability of succeeding in any claim.
However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) disagrees with the claimant's arguments. AFCA states that the provided information shows that the complainant "recognized but recklessly courted the risk of theft" by leaving the vehicle in a public place without proper theft protections.
AFCA points out that the policy specifically required items left in the open air to be fixed with a chain of locks or a wheel locking device to prevent movement. According to AFCA, the locks used by the complainant did not immobilize the wheels or prevent the jet ski and trailer from being rolled away.
The ruling acknowledges that the items were "unattended" at the time of the theft, as no one was present to prevent it from happening.
"At the time of the theft, neither the complainant nor someone else was able to observe any attempt to interfere with the stolen items," AFCA said.
"It is not disputed that the types of locks used by the complainant do not immobilize wheels or stop the trailer from being rolled away. Therefore, by utilizing the locking mechanism the complainant adopted, leaving the items mobile and unattended, the complainant recklessly courted the risk of theft. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the insurer is entitled to deny the claim."
For the full ruling, click here.
