An insurer was right to reject a car crash claim after questioning the driver’s story about swerving to avoid a kangaroo, the industry ombudsman says.

RAC Insurance said the claim was fraudulent after forensic evidence showed the car was twice deliberately driven into a tree.

The policyholder took the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, seeking a payout for the damage, compensation for non-financial loss and for the fraud allegation to be withdrawn.

He said he was driving home in the early hours when a kangaroo jumped out from the left, causing him to swerve before hitting the animal and then a tree.

The man estimated his speed at 65-70km/h and initially suggested he may have hit the tree twice, but he then retracted this under questioning.

An accident reconstruction expert engaged by RAC Insurance found evidence of two frontal impacts recorded across consecutive ignition cycles, indicating the vehicle was turned off or stalled after the first impact and was restarted before the second.

More from AFCA: Insurer’s car repair quotes a low blow, ombudsman says

Vehicle computer data showed the car accelerated from stationary to about 27km/h before the first impact, then reached 29km/h before the second.

The expert said the steering movements were inconsistent with swerving to avoid a kangaroo and indicated the vehicle was driven straight into the tree on both occasions.

AFCA finds the motorist did not adequately explain the discrepancies, and his account lacked credibility.

It says the evidence did not show the incident was “sudden and unexpected”.

“On the contrary, the forensic evidence strongly implies that the vehicle was deliberately driven into the tree twice.”

The AFCA determination notes a forensic mechanic hired by RAC Insurance inspected the car and found pre-existing engine camshaft position faults and startability faults.

“Overall, the vehicle was in a poor pre-accident condition, overdue a service, mechanically well below average and with higher than average mileage,” the mechanic wrote.

AFCA says the insurer does not need to take further action on the matter.

See the ruling here.

---

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

---