QBE was entitled to reject a claim for a $14,000 diamond engagement ring after deeming it fraudulent, the industry ombudsman has ruled.

The claimant, who said he was an accountant, made false statements after the insurer uncovered conflicting accounts about the ring and evidence of financial difficulties, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says in a dispute determination.

The man bought the ring from a US online retailer in October 2023 and said he kept it safely in his house before deciding to insure it in November 2024 because he intended to take it to a jeweller for assessment.

He reported the ring missing in January last year, saying he put it in his car before running errands and might have then accidentally thrown it in a bin.

But the insurer and AFCA found inconsistencies in his account.

The man – who admitted being “impulsive and forgetful” – initially told QBE’s investigator he bought the ring to propose to a friend’s sister, but nothing came of this.

Related article: AFCA rejects ‘inexact proof’ of fraud in crash dispute

However, he later changed his explanation. He told AFCA he bought the ring thinking he “would at least be ready if [he] met someone and things evolved quickly”.

He also said he may have fantasised about giving the ring to various people, including his ex-wife.

When he lodged the claim, he said the ring was in a white box. But photos taken shortly after purchase showed it in a red box, and he could not explain why he had changed container, saying: “There’s a million plausible explanations. I just don’t have one.”

Financial records showed the man was under pressure. He was receiving JobSeeker payments and had depleted bank accounts, high credit card debt and two loans, despite saying he had none.

AFCA says this gave him motive for making a fraudulent claim, although the authority acknowledges there is no evidence he had a history of fraud or dishonesty.

The man said he had a wealthy family who paid for his housing and expenses, so he was not in financial trouble.

AFCA says some of the man’s explanations could have resulted from difficulty recalling events, but on several occasions he knowingly provided false information to convince the insurer to accept his claim.

“Taken together, these statements raise serious doubts about the complainant's credibility.”

See the ruling here.

---

For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine

---