A vintage car owner who accused two repairers of stealing and maliciously damaging his vehicle has lost a claims dispute after failing to establish a valid loss under his insurance.  

The man bought his 1966 Pontiac GTO from the US in 2014, and in 2021 it needed restoration work. That December, he took it to a repair business, referred to as N, and was quoted $12,000 for the work. 

The owner visited the repairer in July 2022 and found little progress had been made, so he organised for a former N employee, referred to as C, to collect the vehicle, but he was allegedly told the repairer would not return the car. 

The owner lodged a claim stating N had stolen the vehicle, but later told insurer SGUAS it had been recovered. He said C took it after allegedly intimidating the repairer with a weapon.

The owner then moved to have the vehicle repaired by C and paid him $6000 for the work.  

He said he later became concerned about his vehicle when C refused to say where it was being stored. C had said the repairs were “proceeding well”, despite taking months.  

The following March, the owner visited C’s workshop. The car was not there and C said he would have it the next day. Following this exchange, C refused to return the owner’s calls, prompting a second theft claim.  

It was later revealed C had kept the vehicle at a paid storage location, where it had parts missing or damaged by corrosion.  

SGUAS rejected the claims, saying the events did not amount to theft because the vehicle was not “converted to new ownership”. It also said its policy had exclusions for losses caused by faulty repairs or corrosion.

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says what happened did not amount to theft, because the owner had authorised N and C to take the car.  

The authority acknowledges there were faults with the repairers’ responses to the owner’s queries about the car’s location, but disagrees that this amounted to theft. It notes the police did not pursue theft investigations into either event.  

AFCA says it is “not clear whether the damage is malicious or just the result of negligence. Both N and C failed to complete the repairs. C appears to have disassembled the vehicle and then failed to do the necessary work.

“He may have regretted promising to do it. At one point, he sought more funds. He was paying to store the vehicle inside a garage, which is consistent with intending to complete the repairs.”  

The ruling acknowledges the situation was “significant and distressing” to the claimant, but accepts the policy would not cover it.  

Click here for the ruling.

From Insurance News magazine: Think you know this industry? Take our end-of-year quiz to find out