Southern Cross Travel Insurance must continue assessing a travel claim after losing a dispute over a policyholder’s refusal to authorise access to private information.

It received the claim in January after the insured’s bag and other items were stolen overseas. 

SCTI asked the man to sign a standard authorisation to collect “any further information reasonably required” as part of its investigations.

But the policyholder declined over privacy concerns. He offered an altered version of the authorisation, requiring the insurer to provide a summary of information requested and obtain written consent to release it to any third party. 

The claimant also refused to provide his phone number when SCTI wanted to talk to him. The man insisted on communicating via email.  

SCTI said it was entitled to defer assessment until the insured co-operated with requests for the standard authorisation and his phone number.  

It noted the claim had been referred to its external investigators and the authorisation was needed to provide “free and unfettered access to relevant third parties”.  

The insurer said the authorisation form was consistent with policy terms and conditions that the claimant agreed to when he bought the cover. It said it would be unfair to expect it to provide cover if there were limitations on how it could obtain relevant information.  

The complainant said his alterations did not limit the insurer’s ability to obtain information, merely delayed it.  

He said it was unreasonable for SCTI to contact anyone to gather information without his knowledge and approval. He added information was “so easily breachable”.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s ombudsman says the matter involves “striking a balance between the complainant’s privacy concerns and the insurer’s investigation not being prejudiced by limitations on its access to information”.  

The authority says the insurer’s standard authority is “drafted in broad terms” and does not explain why the man should grant access to any particular information.  

It finds the insurer has not shown how it would be prejudiced if the complainant provided limited authority over his information.  

“While requesting limited authority/ies from the complainant presents a greater administrative and time burden for the insurer, it has not shown that doing so would inhibit its ability to investigate the claim or is otherwise unworkable or particularly onerous,” the ombudsman said.

“In the absence of the insurer providing reasons to the contrary, the complainant is entitled to know the parties to whom information is being provided to and sought from, its scope, and the opportunity to consent to each.

“Accordingly, the insurer is not entitled to defer assessing the claim until the complainant completes its standard authority form. It is to provide the complainant with limited authorities to complete.”  

AFCA says the claimant can continue using email for general communications but will need to provide his phone number or phone records if relevant to the investigations.  

Click here for the decision.