The owner of a 2016 Porsche 911 Carrera S Cabriolet who was involved in a crash will have his losses covered after winning a dispute against his insurer’s decision to decline the claim because he had left the scene of the accident.

The complainant was involved in a single-vehicle collision, hitting a shed at around 1am on May 7 last year. The man said he “lost concentration” while turning a “poorly lit corner of the road” and lost control of the vehicle, causing it to hit a gutter before crashing into the shed.

Youi appointed an investigator, referred to as MJ, to interview the insured and inspect the circumstances of the incident.

MJ’s report identified that the claimant crashed his vehicle while returning home to pick up his wallet during a late-night drive to a nearby service station.

The complainant told MJ that he felt disorientated after the crash and thought he had been concussed. He said he walked home and fell asleep following the incident before returning to the accident scene in the morning and calling the police after his car was missing.

MJ noted that the man said he had been suffering from several difficulties that would have affected his driving ability, including a lack of sleep due to mental health issues and his ongoing divorce. 

The report also noted that the person who called the police said he saw a man and woman running away from the crashed car.

The police said that they observed that the passenger and driver doors of the car were “wide open” and that a “knitted girl’s sweater” had been found in the vehicle. 

Constable S said that the police attended the listed address of the vehicle, which belonged to the complainant’s ex-wife, who reported that the man was seen drinking with his new partner on the evening of the crash. 

The complainant said that he had been alone at the time of the crash and had not seen his partner at all that night. He later provided text messages between his partner and ex-wife, in which the ex-wife acknowledged that she had been mistaken. 

The police charged the man with negligent driving and a failure to give particulars.

Youi said the complainant’s “failure to give particulars” charge stemmed from his decision to unlawfully leave the accident scene, which was a breach of the policy’s conditions. 

The insurer said that the policy laid out responsibilities for the insured to “not leave the scene of an accident until lawfully allowed to do so”. It argued that it had been prejudiced in its ability to assess the cause and circumstances of the crash due to the complainant’s actions.

The complainant challenged Youi’s contention, saying that he had not been charged with leaving the scene and that it was unfair for the insurer to conflate his “failure to give particulars” charge with unlawfully leaving the accident. 

The insured said that he initially thought he hit the tree in front of the shed and did not realise that he had hit the building until returning to the accident scene in the morning. 

The claimant said that he was unable to provide particulars to the shed’s owner because he did not know their identity but that he contacted police within the 24-hour “required time” identified in law. The man said he would challenge the police’s “failure to give particulars” charge.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) noted that the outcome of the driver’s challenge was unknown at the time of its decision.

But it determined that it was not satisfied that the available information on the crash showed that the complainant unlawfully left the accident scene.

AFCA said there was “no legitimate basis” to reject the complainant’s statement that he thought he had hit a tree and acknowledged that the man had made reasonable attempts to contact the shed owner and provided the police with his particulars within 24 hours of the accident.

“The insurer has not proven the claim is excluded or that its interests were prejudiced,” AFCA said.

“It is therefore fair that the insurer covers the claim under the policy.”

The ruling also required Youi to reimburse the claimant for professional costs from his lawyer fees, up to a limit of $5000.

However, AFCA denied the complainant’s request to be provided cover for the cost of a hire car, saying that the policy only stipulated it in incidents where an insured vehicle was damaged due to a “not at fault accident”. 

Click here for the ruling.