A complainant whose partner took her vehicle while drunk and crashed it when she was not home will not be covered for the damage after a dispute ruling found that the man had express consent to drive the car.

The insured lodged a claim with her insurer on October 6 last year after her partner, referred to as Mr W, was involved in an accident that rendered the vehicle a total loss. 

The claimant says she returned from work on October 3 and found her partner “quite drunk”. The woman says she left the home to visit her neighbour after being upset with Mr W’s state.

Mr W then took the vehicle and crashed. A police report found he had been travelling at about 130kph shortly before the accident before he “overcorrected” during an attempt to take over a vehicle, causing his car to flip. He was reported to have a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) four times the legal limit and was later charged with driving while intoxicated and dangerously operating a vehicle. 

The complainant says Mr W did not have permission to take the vehicle and sought Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia to cover the claim. 

But the insurer declined after referring to interviews conducted with the complainant and Mr W, in which the man says he had permission to use the car “when he wanted” and had driven it at least 50% of the time. 

The insurer also noted that the complainant agreed that Mr W would “take [the car] whenever he wants,” which it says showed express consent for the man to use the vehicle. 

Aioi Nissay Dowa says its policy held exclusions for vehicle losses if the driver had a “presence of alcohol” above legal requirements. 

It highlights that Mr W confirmed he drank 12 “stubbie” beers between 11:30am and 6pm before driving the vehicle and later admitted he was “definitely” over the legal BAC limit. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) says it is satisfied with the insurer’s evidence that the insured provided Mr W consent to drive the vehicle and met the policy’s definition of “driver”. 

AFCA also agreed that the insurer was entitled to decline the claim after the incident met the terms for its applied exclusion. 

“The events the complainant has described are unfortunate and I understand the complainant has suffered a loss which was not her doing,” AFCA said. 

“However, the insurer has shown Mr W had express consent to drive the vehicle and was intoxicated at the time of the accident.  

“This prevents the insurance policy from responding on the basis this type of accident is excluded from the agreed cover.” 

Click here for the ruling.