Car owner denied payout after one crash too many
A driver will not be covered for car damage after her insurer found she was involved in two collisions with another vehicle.
The woman lodged a claim with Hollard last April, stating her car hit the other vehicle only once. The other driver involved also reported feeling only “one bang and drag”.
The insurer initially accepted the claim, but it reversed that decision when its forensic expert said in-car crash data indicated two separate smashes 11 minutes apart.
Crash data from the third-party vehicle suggested the incidents happened about one minute apart.
The expert said the heights of the impact damage were inconsistent with a single crash, and the car had been moving significantly slower than suggested by the claimant.
The insured’s policy stated that for an accident to be covered, it must be caused by a single unexpected and unintentional event.
| More from AFCA: Seafood firm raises stink after power cut |
In a second interview with the insurer, the claimant acknowledged she “may have hit [the other car] a second, third or fourth time because of the ‘bounce’ of the car after the initial impact”, but she could not recall details.
Hollard said inconsistencies in the woman’s story, along with its expert’s findings, showed she was dishonest about the loss and did not have a valid claim.
The claimant argued the expert’s report was misleading, but in a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says it was “detailed, thorough, logically set out and clear”.
It acknowledges crash data from the two cars indicated different time intervals between the incidents, but says this does not weaken Hollard’s argument.
“I am not satisfied the complainant has shown the damage to her car was because of a single accident or occurrence as required by the policy,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.
“Rather, on balance, I consider it more likely the damage to her car was caused by two impacts with the [other vehicle], which did not happen at the same time and did not happen as part of the same, single collision.
“Whether the second collision was one minute or 11 minutes later does not change the finding there were two separate collisions – not a single collision.”
See the ruling here.