A theft victim whose car was stolen after he left it running while he went inside to grab his shoes has lost his claims dispute. 

The complainant lodged a claim after the culprit stole the vehicle while the man went inside his house for two minutes. On return, he saw the car was missing but did not hear it being driven off. The car was later retrieved in a damaged state. 

Auto & General declined the claim, saying that the insured breached the conditions of cover by leaving the vehicle unattended without locking the vehicle or activating any security devices, and leaving the keys in the car. 

The insurer said that given the complainant was inside the home during the theft, he was “not in a position to observe any attempts to interfere with the vehicle or in a position to have a reasonable prospect of preventing any unauthorised interference”. 

The complainant noted that he had only been in the home for two minutes and said that given the incident occurred at around 4:40am, the circumstances of the theft should require the insurer to accept the claim.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acknowledged that the policy did not define the term “unattended” but said that on its interpretation of the commonly used “Starfire” test, the vehicle was left unattended.

AFCA highlighted the Starfire test identifies “a capacity to keep the item under observation and a proximity such that an insured could attempt to prevent unauthorised interference is the test.”

It noted that the vehicle owner had been in his home at the time of the theft and could not see or hear the car being stolen. 

“He could not observe the vehicle or any attempt to interfere with it,” AFCA said.

“Whilst he may have only been inside for two minutes, I am satisfied he did not have a reasonable prospect of preventing any unauthorised interference. Therefore, I am satisfied, the car was unattended.”

The ruling considered section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), which provides relief to the complainant unless an insurer can show that an action taken by the insured contributed to the loss, but said that this did not assist the claimant’s case.

“The act in this case is leaving the key in the unattended vehicle,” AFCA said.

“I consider leaving the key in the vehicle whilst unattended can reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to the theft.”

“I empathise with the complainant as he has suffered a loss. However, given the policy does not cover the circumstances of the loss, it would be unfair to require the insurer to accept the claim.”

Click here for the ruling.