A motorcyclist has lost his claims dispute after he was found to have falsely described how his vehicle was damaged.

The complainant said he crashed his 2014 Ducati 899 on January 17 last year after turning a corner into gravel debris. He said the bike slid “across the road, into the grass and then flipped over into some gravel on the shoulder of the road”. 

The vehicle had been insured for an agreed value of $18,000.  

Eric Insurance’s assessor inspected the damaged vehicle and found several indicators that it had been used for racing purposes, and that the incident occurred on a racetrack.  

The assessor said extreme blistering on the tyres was consistent with racetrack use and that the vehicle’s average speed for the previous 20km had been 125kmh. They also observed sticker residue on the windscreen where race-day stickers were typically placed. 

A repairer agreed the wear on the tyres “can only be achieved on a race surface” and noted tape residue on the vehicle’s mirrors, which was a requirement for track races. 

Eric Insurance declined the claim, noting the policy required that the vehicle not be used for racing or event purposes. It noted the experts’ findings and that the bike had been in “racing mode” when turned on.   

The insurer said the claim was fraudulent, noting the claimant had not been truthful about circumstances surrounding the incident and had lied about being at a racetrack on the incident date.   

The complainant rejected the suggestion the motorcycle had been used for racing purposes and disputed allegations he had been at a racetrack that day. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has accepted that the insurer established the man was at the track and says the inconsistency “affected the credibility of the complainant’s claim”.  

AFCA acknowledges findings from an expert engaged by the insured but says they do not provide a valid retort to the blistering on the vehicle’s tyres. It accepts that Eric Insurance is entitled to rely on its “tests and events” exclusion and decline the claim. 

“Given the complainant’s inaccurate statement that he was not at the track on January 17, 2023, I am satisfied that it is more likely the loss occurred at the track on that day,” AFCA’s adjudicator said. “As a result, I am satisfied the insurer has established the application of this exclusion to the circumstances of the loss.” 

The authority also agrees no compensation is due for non-financial losses. It accepts that the insurer’s decision on the claim came about six months after it was filed but agrees there has been no breach of the General Insurance Code of Practice, which provides a 12-month time frame for suspected fraudulent claims. 

Click here for the ruling.