QBE will not be allowed to recover repair costs from a complainant after it fixed his wife’s vehicle when it was no longer insured.

The complainant held a motor policy that was cancelled on November 16 2022 when he failed to pay the annual renewal premium.  

The man’s wife said she became aware the policy was cancelled only when trying to lodge a claim for an at-fault accident on March 21 last year.

She took out a new policy on March 22 and lodged a claim for the damage to her vehicle.  

The insurer agreed to repair the vehicle, but later said it should not have, arguing the wife had misled it by providing the wrong date for the accident.

It alleged that she said the loss occurred on March 22 after she bought the new policy.

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says QBE cancelled the policy appropriately after emailing a renewal offer to the policyholder on September 27 2022, more than a month before the policy was due to expire.

The claimant said he did not agree to receive email notices, but policy records showed he selected email, via his wife’s account, as his preferred delivery method.  

However, the authority says that, despite the insurer not being liable for the repairs, it is not entitled to recover the cost from the complainant.  

AFCA heard that the complainant’s wife gave QBE the correct accident date, as confirmed on the new policy records.  

“I am satisfied that when the insurer repaired the vehicle, it was aware of the date of the accident and aware the previous policy had been cancelled on November 16 2022,” the authority’s adjudicator said.  

“Although the insurer repaired the vehicle when it had no liability to do so, I do not consider it fair for it to recover the repair costs from the complainant.

“The complainant reasonably believed the insurer had agreed to cover the repair costs.

“There is no information to suggest the complainant allowed the repairs to be completed knowing the insurer had made an error.”  

AFCA has also told QBE to pay $1000 to the complainant for non-financial losses.  

“If anything, the insurer has misled the complainant into believing there was cover for the accident and [the wife’s] liability to the third party. I am satisfied the insurer’s mistakes in the handling of the claim and complaint have caused an unusual level of frustration and inconvenience for the complainant.”  

Click here for the ruling.