An insurer must issue a decision on two damaged vehicles after it alleged that the claimant had not cooperated with its requests for information and denied the claims.

The complainant lodged claims for seven vehicles following a building fire on November 10, 2022. The insurer had settled four, but three were disputed.   

The disputes surrounded the insurer’s decision to deny cover for a 1976 Volkswagen Kombi and a 1967 Ford Mustang, citing the claimant’s failure to provide information to assist its claims handling. A separate dispute centred on disagreements over the amount paid for a 1998 Subaru Impreza.  

Suncorp says it sent several letters from June to September last year asking the complainant to provide evidence of ownership, such as receipts, invoices, valuations, and photographs of the vehicle before the fire. It also requested the firm provide a signed “information authority release” from the claimant’s business property insurer.  

Suncorp argues that the information was relevant to its investigations and that its primary interest was to confirm whether the insured had made any claims with the property insurer regarding the fire and review those findings.   

The insurer denied the claims in October, saying it was “unable to clarify and resolve the facts and circumstances” of the claim and that the policyholder’s actions “prejudiced our ability to determine the extent of our liability”.  

The complainant’s director says he did not think his property insurer would provide the requested information as it had told him not to discuss “anything on their side of things” while its investigation was ongoing.   

The director says the business was unable to provide any documented receipts, service records, or logbooks as they had been destroyed in the fire. He also states that the vehicles had no registration papers as they had not been registered at the time of the incident.  

The firm provided Suncorp with pre-fire photos of the vehicles and offered statutory declarations from the director and other staff, but the insurer said these would not have been sufficient to accept the claim.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agreed that the company had provided a detailed response that “made clear” that it could not deliver the requested ownership documents. It says the insurer did not showcase any information to challenge the claimant’s position.   

The ruling says Suncorp also did not convincingly show that it only sought information from the property insurer relevant to the vehicle claims or addressed whether the insurer would agree to release commercially sensitive information to it.  

The ruling agreed that Suncorp must deliver a decision on the claims within 28 days of the determination, noting that it received “a large amount of information from the complainant,” as well as reports from third-party investigators and experts. 

“I am satisfied that the insurer has had ample time to complete its reasonable investigations into the [Volkswagen] and the Mustang claims,” the authority said.  

“I acknowledge that [mechanical engineers] suggested further possible avenues of enquiry, but the insurer has had nine months to pursue those enquiries.

“In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the insurer to assess the claims based on the information it currently holds, and subject to the terms and conditions of the PDS.”  

The complaints body ruled in favour of Suncorp on a separate dispute relating to the Subaru vehicle, which had been assessed as a total loss.   

The insurer had offered a $50,000 payout based on the policy’s agreed value, but the claimant argued that $70,000 was a more reflective value.  

The ruling noted statements from one of the insurer’s underwriters, as well as information from the certificate of insurance, that it says established that the offered sum had been appropriate.   

“The Subaru was insured for $50,000 as an agreed value at the time it was rendered a total loss,” the authority said. “That is the limit of the insurer’s liability under the policy.”  

Click here for the ruling.