The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has backed insurers in three vehicle claim disputes lodged by customers who blamed the sudden appearance of kangaroos for them losing control and crashing into trees.

AFCA says evidence submitted by the complainants in the three disputes is inconsistent with facts and forensic investigation findings, raising doubts about their credibility.

The financial dispute body also does not discount the possibility that the collisions may have been staged, as the complainants stood to profit had their claims been accepted.

In a claim denied by RACQ, the complainant said he was working as an Uber driver on the night of the collision on February 8 last year. He was on his way to pick up passengers but lost his way, so tried to find his location on his mobile phone but there was no Internet reception.

He then made a u-turn, driving at about 45-50kmh with his seat belt strapped on when a kangaroo emerged out of nowhere in front of the car, forcing him to swerve and hit a tree. He said he knew his car, a 2014 Mazda CX-9 model, had hit the animal.

The vehicle was assessed and declared a total loss. But while a forensic report concluded the damage profile to the tree and the front of the car was consistent, it said the absence of kangaroo hair or blood on the vehicle does not support the complainant’s assertion that he had crashed into a kangaroo.

AFCA called out other inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and the evidence of a possible financial motive.

The vehicle was insured for an agreed value of $33,000 and its pre-crash valuation was $25,840 meaning the complainant stood to make a windfall of $7160 if his claim was accepted.

AFCA says the complainant had limited financial means, with just $464.74 in his personal bank account at the time of the crash, and he had a gambling habit.

The dispute resolution body came to similar conclusions in two other disputes lodged against Suncorp.

In a case involving a 2017 Audi A7 luxury car that was insured for an agreed value of $119,860, AFCA says the complainant’s evidence raises substantial concerns about the circumstances of the collision on June 16 2019.

The complainant told the insurer’s investigator it was raining heavily and he was driving at 30-40km/h when he saw a kangaroo in the middle of the road. He says he veered to the left of the road and hit a tree.

He later changed his statement, saying he was caught by surprise and has English language difficulties. In a statutory declaration to AFCA, he said he was looking at the kangaroo at all times, did not see the tree before colliding into it, and did not apply the brakes. This contradicted his statements to the insurer’s investigator.

AFCA says the forensic investigation made by Suncorp found the car’s tyres were worn below the minimum required tread depth and that it had been repaired after a previous frontal collision. It also concluded the physical evidence did not support the complainant’s account that he swerved off the road to avoid the animal.

In dismissing the complaint, AFCA also says a financial motive existed for the complainant to stage the crash. He stood to make a windfall of almost $75,000 if Suncorp had accepted his claim. He had provided a pre-accident assessment of $45,000 while the car was insured for $119,860.

In the other Suncorp dispute, AFCA ruled the complainant’s version of how her 2009 BMW X5 collided with a kangaroo was not supported by forensic evidence gathered by the insurer.

She said she was travelling on a road on the night of January 16 last year when a kangaroo jumped in front of her car, causing her to swerve and ram into a tree.

AFCA said the forensic report contradicts “information provided by the complainant about the circumstances of the claim and the condition of the vehicle at the time of the claimed event”.

AFCA also says the complainant stood to benefit financially in the event of a successful claim given the vehicle was insured for an agreed sum of $37,310.

“This was well above the $25,000 which the complainant reportedly purchased the vehicle for, and well above the market value of the vehicle (estimated by the insurer to be about $17,000),” AFCA ruled.

Click here for the RACQ ruling, here for the Suncorp ruling on the Audi and here for the BMW.