A business whose motor insurance policy was cancelled over the non-disclosure of a director’s driving offences has lost a dispute before the complaints authority.

The policy covered a 2014 Maserati GranTurismo sports car for which the director, referred to as TL, was the sole driver. The business lodged a claim after TL was involved in a single-vehicle accident in December 2022.

QBE Insurance declined the claim because the business had not disclosed three of five speeding offences TL committed between August 2019 and August 2022. Two offences had been revealed when the company added a second car to the policy in November 2022.  

The insurer says the complainant – which bought the policy through its broker – did not disclose the offences when it renewed its policy, and if QBE had known of TL’s driving history it would not have offered cover.  

QBE cancelled the policy after the claim denial and refunded the business its annual premium.  

The business said TL was involved in a “messy” divorce at the time of the policy renewal, which contributed to his failure to inform the insurer about the offences.  

It noted QBE agreed to add the second vehicle to the policy despite being made aware of two of the offences.

The authority acknowledges this but says QBE would have considered the man an “unacceptable driver” had it been aware of his entire traffic offence history, because its underwriting guidelines stipulated “three or more driving convictions” are unacceptable for Maserati drivers.  

“I am not persuaded by the complainant’s argument that the insurer should apply a discretion ... I am satisfied that it would not have renewed the policy if all the offences in the three years prior to the 2022 renewal had been disclosed,” an authority ombudsman said.

The ombudsman says the insurer has “established that it was prejudiced to the extent that it would not have insured the vehicle if the complainant had disclosed all the offences. On balance, I consider that based on the underwriting rules, the whole risk would have been uninsurable.”  

Click here for the ruling.

For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine