The owner of a 1972 Holden Torana who alleged that his vehicle had been stolen while stored at a repair shop has lost his claims dispute after failing to show he incurred the loss while he had been insured. 

The complainant lodged a claim with SGUAS for the theft on June 15 last year, alleging that it occurred on or about June 11. The claimant had incepted the policy for the vehicle just two days before the alleged date of the theft, covering it for an agreed value of $130,000.

The policyholder purchased the vehicle in 2019 from a repairer for $75,000. He says he asked the repairer to restore the car for $15,000 as it had been damaged but he had never received an invoice nor made payments for any work done to the vehicle. The vehicle had been unregistered, and the claimant says he had never driven it since purchasing it. 

The complainant says he received an anonymous phone call on or around June 11 informing him that the vehicle had been stolen and was no longer with the repairer. 

The man says he attempted to get in contact with the repairer for two days before visiting the shop on June 14 and finding that the premises had been vacated and was inaccessible. He reported the matter to the police the next day, but the repairer could not be located. 

The insured says he last saw the vehicle in March while checking in on the repair progress. He told the police that he observed ongoing repairs to the vehicle during the visit and that the car had been “completely undrivable” before revising in a later statement that the works had been “almost complete”.

However, an investigator who spoke to the property owner says the repairer had left the premise in March and that the property had been vacant since, disputing the claimant’s recollection of events.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) also questioned the legitimacy of the complainant’s allegations. 

AFCA notes that the police report had placed the date of the man’s visit to the vehicle as June 4. The claimant says this was an inaccuracy and that the correct date was June 14. 

The ruling says regardless of whether the insured or the police had the correct date, the likely outcome was that the repairer had vacated the property months before the visit. 

“The exchanged information shows the repairer abandoned the premises as early as March 2022,” AFCA said.

“There is no evidence the complainant saw the vehicle after mid-March 2022. The vehicle could have been removed from the premises at any time after this.

“Even if I accept the complainant did not become aware of the ‘theft’ until after the policy came into effect, this does not mean the claim is covered.”

AFCA says the insurer was entitled to decline the claim because a claimable loss had not been proven. 

“To be covered, the complainant must show he incurred a loss during the period of cover,” AFCA said.

“The exchanged information does not, on balance, show he incurred a loss on or after June 9 2022.

“If any loss was incurred, it more likely than not pre-dated the inception of the policy.”

Click here for the ruling.