Brought to you by:

Dropping price: insurer liable for bat scat damage to Porsche

The complaints authority has backed Auto & General’s decision to deny a claim for a stolen Porsche but says it must pay for paint damage caused by bat droppings while the car was in its care.

The claimant reported her Porsche Macan stolen from her garage on January 11. The SUV was recovered the next day with exterior and interior damage.

The policyholder sought a payout for the damage, but Auto & General declined because she had left the car unattended and with keys inside.

The woman said the car was inside her secured garage and she believed she had locked it. She accepted she left keys in a small bag in the car, but argued this should not have led to a claim denial.

An Australian Financial Complaints Authority ombudsman says the claimant breached her policy terms by leaving the vehicle unattended and with keys in the vicinity.

They note that despite the vehicle being secured in the locked garage, “no one [was] in a position to watch over the car or prevent theft”.  

However, the ombudsman says Auto & General should pay for damage that occurred while the vehicle was under the insurer’s control.

The claimant said that when she received the vehicle from the insurer, it was covered with dry bat droppings and needed a respray worth $4908.

Auto & General maintained it was not responsible for repairing the damage because it had not accepted the claim.  

But AFCA says the droppings got onto the car either during or after the theft – probably when it was in police care – and it would have been reasonable for the insurer to clean them off to prevent further damage.  

“I do not accept the insurer’s position that just because the claim has been rejected it is not liable for the cost,” the ombudsman said.

“Most of the time the droppings were on the car, the car was in the care of the [insurance] assessor.

“I find that the damage could have been avoided if during the period the car was in the assessor’s care and before it was returned to the complainant on February 6, the bat droppings had been washed off.” 

Click here for the ruling.