A complainant whose vehicle slipped down a boat ramp into water will be compensated for his losses after a dispute ruling dismissed his insurer’s allegation that the claim was fraudulent. 

The vehicle owner was involved in an accident in the early morning of April 9, 2021, after attempting to use the ramp to offload a jet ski. 

The man says he had “fully backed up” on the concrete ramp and braked, but the car continued to slide down, causing its trailer to submerge. He also says water entered the vehicle through the boot and driver-side door as he attempted to get it out of the water. 

The driver says he could only turn on the vehicle after a few minutes. He notes that the vehicle’s dashboard displayed “a lot of warning lights,” but he was able to drive it home.

An invoice from a repairer, referred to as VC, highlighted that a “significant amount of water” was found in the vehicle’s boot and interior. VC also identified that saltwater had corroded various modules, wirings and body components of the car. 

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia declined the claim, alleging that it had been fraudulent and intentionally caused by the complainant. 

The insurer relied on findings from a forensic accident investigation service, referred to as FI, which reported that the circumstances of the incident had been “inconsistent and irregular”.

FI notes that an analysis of the vehicle’s rear compartment and undercarriage did not show the extent of damage claimed by the complainant. FI also raised doubts about whether the car would have been able to start, given the amount of water that allegedly entered it.

However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) questioned FI’s “selective investigation,” noting it had not considered VC’s findings or the examinations of the claimant’s mechanic, who had observed the vehicle. 

AFCA also dismissed Insurance Manufacturers of Australia’s assessment of the claimant’s motive after the insurer noted that the man had debts totalling around $100,000 and had missed several payments on his vehicle’s finance. 

The ruling acknowledged a payslip from June 2021, which showed the complainant had a net income of $2637 per week, as well as his wife’s annual salary of $69,000. It says is not satisfied that the insurer “adequately considered the difference between disorderly finances and financial capacity”. 

“There is no adequate assessment about the complainant’s capacity to deal with the debts,” AFCA said.

“In addition, while the insurer says it reviewed the relevant account, the available information does not include the account to which the complainant deposited his income.

“In the circumstances, I am not persuaded by the insurer’s representation that the complainant was in financial hardship.”

AFCA required Insurance Manufacturers of Australia to accept the claim and remove any mentions of fraud or intentional behaviour from the complainant's record.

Click here for the ruling.