The owner of a stolen 2018 Maserati Levante has lost his claims dispute after a ruling panel found the claimant had left the vehicle unattended and at increased risk.

The complainant lodged the claim after the vehicle, which was insured for an agreed value of $100,000, was stolen from his garage on the morning of March 11 last year.

The claimant left his home at around 10am to walk his dog. He closed the security gate but left the garage door open as he expected his wife to go out shortly after. 

The man’s wife went to the car at around 10:20am, where she left her purse, car keys, and garage door remote before returning inside to get her daughter.

CCTV footage showed that at 10:28am, a person climbed over the gate, entered the vehicle, and unlocked the security gate before driving away with an accomplice. About five minutes later, the wife returned to the garage and found the car missing.

Suncorp acknowledged the circumstances of the loss but declined to cover the claim, saying its policy excluded thefts where the insured vehicle had been left unattended, unlocked and with the keys inside.

The policy defines a vehicle as “unattended” if no person is “capable of keeping your car under observation or observe an attempt to interfere with it”.

The complainant argues that the vehicle could not have been unattended as it had been in the garage and locked behind a security gate. He also notes that the CCTV monitoring allowed him to keep his car under surveillance. 

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) panel disagreed with the insured’s assessment, saying that neither he nor anyone else was capable of keeping the vehicle under observation, as shown by the theft. 

“The panel considers ‘being capable of keeping’ the vehicle under observation requires that either the complainant or his wife were watching it or close enough to watch it,” AFCA said.

“Whilst a momentary distraction can happen, it is not in dispute the vehicle was left unwatched for several minutes.

“This, in addition to the vehicle being unlocked and with the keys left in it, made it a target of opportunity.”

AFCA also acknowledged the claimant’s arguments that the theft would have occurred regardless of whether the keys were left in the vehicle, as the perpetrators were known by the police to enter homes to steal keys. 

However, the panel says the wife’s decision to leave the keys in the car likely contributed to the loss as it made the vehicle an “easier target”.

“Whilst the panel accepts the loss was genuine and the cause of great distress for the complainant and his family, it occurred in circumstances the insurer does not cover,” AFCA said.

“Given this, the panel accepts the insurer is entitled to rely on the cited exclusion to deny the claim. This means the insurer is not required to cover the claimed loss.”

Click here for the ruling.