A policyholder who reported his car stolen and destroyed will receive a $50,000 agreed value payout despite an insurer’s concerns about his credibility.

The man said his heavily modified 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution was taken from a shopping centre car park about 3pm on October 22 2023.  

He said he returned from buying groceries to find it missing and immediately called police, who found the vehicle about 20 minutes’ drive away at 4.10pm. It had been torched.  

There were no witnesses to the theft, and the shopping centre’s staff said CCTV footage was unavailable.  

Assetinsure denied the man’s claim, saying there was insufficient proof the vehicle was stolen.  

It referred to phone records showing the man did not contact police when he said, but rather called two hours later, after police had found the car burnt out.

The insurer said the claimant had not explained why he made three short phone calls to the same number just before the theft or spent $15.20 at a key-cutting shop the day before.

Records showed the man transferred $3000 to an individual two days before the event, which Assetinsure considered unusual.  

The insurer also argued that even if a theft occurred, the claim would fail because it appeared the car’s immobiliser, alarm and kill switch were not maintained or were inactive, which the policy excluded.  

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority acknowledges the insurer’s “reasonable concerns” but finds “no evidence that directly links the complainant to the theft of his vehicle”.  

It says the man’s bank statements showed he had a stable income from his work and Centrelink payments.

It accepts there is a chance the claimant arranged the theft but says this is made less plausible by the fact it occurred in a public location covered by CCTV.  

AFCA also rejects the argument around poor maintenance of the car’s anti-theft systems, saying the insurer’s assertions are speculative.  

Assetinsure also argued it should not have to pay the agreed value of $50,000, because the claimant had failed to detail all the car’s modifications, which he said were worth $35,000. He provided information for only $22,000 of work.  

However, AFCA says it would not be fair to change the value given the insurer charged premiums based on the agreed figure.  

“Even if I were to accept that the complainant did not disclose all the modifications, I do not accept that this caused any detriment to the insurer,” the authority’s ombudsman said. “As such, I am satisfied that the insurer is required to settle this claim based on the agreed value.”  

Click here for the ruling.