Brought to you by:

Dad loses claim dispute after daughter crashes car

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google

A father is unable to claim on his motor policy with IAG because his daughter was driving at the time of an at-fault collision and the policy excludes under 25s.

The man complained to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), saying the claim should be paid as his daughter “holds a full licence and is not an unsafe driver”, but the ruling found for the insurer.

The complainant argued that when he purchased his policy online in April last year, there was a glitch in the system that meant an optional extra to insure under 25s was not displayed.

He also said a previous telephone call with the insurer gave the impression that the comprehensive policy would “provide all benefits”. And he said when he lodged the claim he was led to believe it would be paid.

But AFCA says there is no evidence of the glitch the man describes, and he has not been able to provide details of the phone call.

It says the product disclosure statement and certificate of insurance clearly set out the terms, and the man had time to add cover for under 25s prior to the accident which took place about three months later.

It also says that advice given at claim lodgement does not alter the outcome.

“I appreciate the complainant feels misled by the insurer into thinking the claim would be accepted,” AFCA said.

“That was because of communications made soon after the claim was lodged. However, at that early stage the insurer was still investigating the details and circumstances of the incident.

“I do not consider it has acted inappropriately in taking the action it did, or in its messaging to the complainant who did not, in any case, suffer any detriment as a result of the information he received.

AFCA says the policy specifically excludes drivers under the age of 25 years unless the optional extra cover is taken out.

“The complainant did not take out that extra cover which was available to him. The at-fault accident happened when the car was being driven by the complainant’s daughter who was under 25.

“That means the insurer is not liable for the claim, either in respect of the damage to the insured vehicle, or that of the third party involved in the accident.”

Click here for the full ruling.