A complainant who lodged a claim after a person driving their insured vehicle was involved in a collision will not be compensated after the incident was found to have been “deliberately caused” by the driver. 

The insured vehicle, a 2022 Mitsubishi Triton, was damaged after an incident on a main road between the driver and a third party. The pickup truck had been insured under a comprehensive car policy and was believed to have been used for business purposes. 

The complainant alleged the third party had been “driving erratically” moments before the crash, including speeding between lanes. They said the third party stopped suddenly in front of their vehicle after overtaking, causing the collision.

The third party said the driver of the insured vehicle was driving inappropriately and that there had been “dangerous encounters on the road” between the two. They said the driver of the complainant's vehicle appeared to have been preventing them from overtaking. 

The third party said during an attempt to overtake the driver, they had beeped the horn excessively to signal their dangerous driving. 

Allianz did not dispute that the event occurred but said that the circumstances of the crash suggested that the incident had been intentionally caused by the driver of the complainant's vehicle rather than the “unexpected or unintended” policy definition of accident.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) observed dashcam footage provided by the third party, which it said shows the driver following the third party until the collision. 

“It is clear that after the third party went past the complainant blowing the vehicle’s horn, the complainant appears that he will turn right,” AFCA said.

“The complainant then moves in the main traffic and seemingly pursues the third party. It is unclear whether the third party vehicle brakes as said by the complainant. 

“What is shown is that the complainant travels toward the TP and collides with that vehicle.”

AFCA said the dashcam footage was “compelling” and said given the limited information about the event, with neither police nor emergency services called, it was satisfied that the insurer was entitled to decline the claim.

“Based on the dashcam footage including commentary that can be heard on it, I am persuaded that the complainant deliberately collided with the third party vehicle,” AFCA said. 

“The complainant has raised the driver’s mental health issues. Nothing has been provided that shows the complainant’s mental state was responsible for the decision he made.”

Click here for the ruling.