A car theft victim has lost her challenge to overturn her insurer’s claim denial after a dispute ruling found the woman did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle while it was unattended. 

The car was stolen from the complaint’s garage on July 23 last year while she and her husband were unloading shopping items. She says she had initially closed the garage door but later opened it as she was expecting her personal trainer to arrive.  

The claimant says she thought she heard the trainer, but when she returned to the garage, the vehicle was missing.  

A police report confirmed that the vehicle had been stolen, just minutes after the insured’s husband returned home from shopping, by a passenger from a passing car who entered the garage and drove away in the vehicle. The stolen car was recovered on August 1 and was assessed as a total loss.

Allianz declined the claim after a report from its investigator found the complainant had left the key fob inside the car centre control and the ignition keys in the car when it was stolen. 

The insurer says its policy stipulates it would not pay for unattended vehicle losses unless the insured made sure to lock all doors and windows, and did not leave keys within the vehicle.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) notes that the policy did not define the term “unattended” but acknowledged that based on the commonly used “Starfire” test, the complainant’s vehicle would have met the criteria.  

The Starfire precedent defines an item as “unattended” if the insured is not in a position to observe, or have a reasonable prospect to prevent, any potential interference.

AFCA disagreed with the complainant’s contention that the Starfire test didn’t apply on the matter, as the vehicle had not been left in a public place, but was on her private property and not easily visible from the street.

“I do not consider the concept of leaving something unattended is limited to leaving it unattended in a public place,” AFCA said. 

“A thing is unattended if it is unattended in a private location that is accessible to passers-by. In any event, the policy excludes cover in either circumstance.” 

“The available evidence indicates that at the time of the theft, the complainant could not see the car and could not have seen or heard anyone interfering with it. Therefore, the car was unattended.” 

The ruling acknowledged the “unfortunate circumstances” surrounding the theft and that the outcome of its decision impacted her ability to obtain motor vehicle insurance. However, it maintains that requiring Allianz to accept the claim would not be fair.  

Click here for the ruling.