A WA policyholder with an extensive criminal history, including arson, has lost a claim dispute.  

Perth-based RAC Insurance declined his May 2020 house fire claim, saying it was lit deliberately by the homeowner and major inconsistencies between his version of events and forensic evidence indicated fraud. 

CCTV footage and a receipt from a hardware store showed him purchasing 12 litres of kerosene 15 minutes before the fire, and rags with petroleum distillate residue were found in holes in the dining and lounge room walls and on the floor.  

He was jailed for six months for various outstanding arrest warrants, though charges relating to the fire were discontinued despite sufficient evidence as prosecutors saw potential issues with a 21-day delay between the fire and the insurer’s fire scene examination.  

The man had lost his job as a building site manager a few months before the fire. The company he had been working for had gone into liquidation, owing him a significant amount. 

Bank statements showed he had almost no funds and considerable debts and was receiving Jobseeker payments. He said he had been wanting to move east and the home, which he had been renovating, had “been nothing but problems”.  

The policy had sums insured of $315,000 for the building and $84,000 for contents. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority said RAC Insurance’s submissions on motive, opportunity, character and credibility were “persuasive,” and it was “more likely than not the complainant intentionally lit the fire”. 

“The insurer was entitled to deny the complainant’s claim on the basis he deliberately lit the fire,” AFCA’s ombudsman said. “I am satisfied it is more likely than not that ... the claim is fraudulent. 

"The insurer did not mishandle the claim and its decision to report the findings of its investigation to the police was not unreasonable.” 

The policyholder alerted RAC Insurance of the fire on the date it occurred, saying he had burnt his arm, a candle possibly spread the fire, and around $100,000 in damage to the home had occurred.  

He said he had been working alone at home with headphones on, using cleaning chemicals. He smelt smoke and in the lounge he found a pile of rubbish. As he grabbed a burning rag, he knocked over a tub of wax and grease remover which resulted in a fireball due to fumes. 

The fire may have initially started due to his failure to properly extinguish a cigarette, he said, and his leg hairs were singed. 

He had purchased the home in January 2019 and was renovating before an acrimonious relationship break-up late that year. The home was vandalised in the January before the May 2020 fire and damaged. Items were stolen and flammable chemicals spilt throughout. The insurer’s restorer applied a cleaning treatment after that January 2020 incident. 

In a 2022 interview with another RAC investigator, the man said on the day of the May 2020 fire he was using a grinder and he was uncertain whether a spark was the cause. 

Forensic and other evidence showed inconsistencies in his versions of the events. 

Investigators determined there were multiple fire seats including the dining room, kitchen, lounge and second bedroom, several walls with holes containing rags or incense sticks, and fire flow and combustion patterns indicated an ignitable liquid accelerant had been poured throughout those areas prior to the fire. 

“There were multiple areas of origin and the fire incident concerned was a deliberate fire or an incendiary fire,” the investigator report said.  

It rejected the homeowner’s suggestion the fire may have been due to the presence of fumes left over from the January 2020 vandalism incident, or from third parties pouring flammable liquid in the home before he arrived. 

Attending fire crew noted suspicious circumstances and behaviour by the complainant, and a fire investigation officer deemed the fire deliberate. 

See the ruling here.