A van owner has won a reversal of her insurer’s decision to reject a damage claim after it said she misrepresented the vehicle’s condition by not disclosing camping-related modifications.  

The woman sought a payout after a tree fell on the van in February last year, rendering it a total loss.

Auto & General rejected the claim and cancelled the policy over additions that included fixed shelving, interior panelling, a mattress, roof racks and a removable fridge and gas stove. It said these prejudiced its ability to assess the vehicle’s risk.

The insurer noted the changes were made before the last policy renewal, when the woman had answered “no” under “modifications to the car” and “non-standard accessories”.  

The claimant argued all the additions – bar the shelving – were removable and she did not think they required disclosing.  

The insurer produced a statement from its motor underwriting manager, who said company guidelines would deem any vehicle matching the description of “camper conversion” an unacceptable risk.  

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority acknowledges the claimant misrepresented the van’s condition, but it disagrees that the changes were so great that the insurer would have refused cover.

It finds “no substantive evidence that ... the performance or security of the van has changed from the manufacturer’s original design”.  

It adds the insurer never asked if the van had been converted into a camper.  

“There is no persuasive evidence that if the complainant had correctly disclosed the accessories, the insurer would have found that the accessories constituted a conversion,” an AFCA ombudsman said.

“There is also no persuasive evidence the complainant was on notice that the van would be an unacceptable risk as a camper. I am not satisfied the insurer was prejudiced by the misrepresentation, or that it has grounds to deny the claim or cancel the policy.”  

AFCA has also rejected application of the policy’s modified vehicle exclusion, because the claimed event did not arise from the modifications.  

The complainant argued the insurer’s loss assessment of $44,000 was not appropriate because it did not consider the cost of her additional fittings.  

But AFCA says it would be unfair to include these, because they were not disclosed and “never part of the accepted insurance risk”.

Click here for the ruling.