The car owner had filed for the losses with his insurer, Allianz, under the impression that the stationary state of his classic automobile placed it outside the category of a motor vehicle, which would typically be excluded from home insurance coverage. The claim also included potential legal liabilities related to the damage inflicted upon the neighbor's property.
However, Allianz stood firm on the grounds of their policy, which explicitly excludes motor vehicles, setting the stage for AFCA’s involvement to help settle the matter. The authority consulted both dictionary and legal definitions during its adjudication to arrive at a conclusion.
The decision was crystal clear. Although the prized Mercedes was not road-ready, it was undeniably a car, designed for motor propulsion and fit for highway use. Conclusively, for all intents and purposes regarding the claim, the car was classified as a motor vehicle.
Additionally, the authority addressed the aspect of legal liability, stating that while it may have been a legitimate claim, the insurance policy in question conveniently draws a line, omitting any claims connected to the ownership or operation of a 'mechanically propelled vehicle.'
The underlying fact, as pointed out by AFCA, was that any car functions through mechanical propulsion, dovetailing with its design intent. Thus, the Mercedes, regardless of its non-functional state, was subject to the same rules, exempting the legal liability concerns from the policy's scope of coverage.
Despite the setback for the claimant in terms of coverage, AFCA noted an oversight by the insurer during its claims process. Allianz overlooked the policyholder's legal liability concerns without due consideration, an error that led to frustration and inconvenience for the customer. In light of this, AFCA has ruled that Allianz compensate the claimant with AUD 1,000 for non-financial losses sustained as a result of the claim handling process.
