A policyholder whose car was stolen while he and his wife put away groceries will be covered for his loss despite leaving the ignition key in the vehicle, after the dispute authority found the couple did not recklessly court the theft.

The man’s 2017 Audi Q5 was taken in December last year while parked on the road outside his home.

The claimant said he and his wife were inside the home, returning groceries and other items while preparing for a beach trip. He said there was a mix-up between the two about who would get the last batch of items, and when he went to fetch them, the car was gone.

He initially claimed for theft but revised it to only include damage done to the car before it was found. 

RACQ Insurance said the claimant failed to take “reasonable precautions”, noting the car door was left slightly open, with the key inside.

Its policy stated insureds were not covered “if you or someone who is in charge or control of your vehicle ... doesn’t take reasonable precautions to keep your vehicle ... safe and secure, and protect it from loss or damage. For example, leaving keys in your vehicle while it is unattended.”

The insurer said the couple could not prevent the theft because they were inside the home and the car was not in view.  

The man’s wife said she parked the car on the road because the driveway was occupied by another vehicle and a boat in preparation for the beach trip. She was “in a rush” because of the trip and left the key as her hands were full carrying the groceries.  

She said her husband was outside and she was expecting him to get the key and her phone.  

The insured argued he could see the vehicle from the kitchen and said it was unfair to consider the car unattended because the theft happened within five minutes of him entering the home.

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says it is “difficult to accept” the vehicle was in the man’s sight, and it agrees neither the man nor his wife could prevent the theft. 

The authority also notes the man mentioned a “spate of car thefts in the area”.  

However, it says the insured’s wife had not “recognised or contemplated a risk of theft” and the couple were distracted by events in the home, causing them to overlook the vehicle’s security.  

“There is no persuasive information showing a risk of theft was at the forefront of the insureds’ minds when they left the insured vehicle unattended and unlocked the way it was,” an AFCA ombudsman said.

“There is also no persuasive information showing the complainant was particularly aware [his wife] had left her phone and the ignition key in the insured vehicle at the time.  

“Considering these matters, I accept the insureds’ actions can be perceived as inadvertent or, at most, negligent or careless. I do not accept they go so far as to show they deliberately or recklessly courted the risk of theft.”  

Click here for the ruling.

From Insurance News magazine: We explore the murky world of illicit accident management businesses