An insurer was entitled to reject a motor claim for a crash its forensic investigator called “arranged and intentional”, the industry ombudsman says.

A Toyota Kluger owner said he was driving home from a restaurant when he rear-ended a car stopped in a right-turning lane. He said he tried to swerve and brake but was unable to avoid the smash.

However, an investigator commissioned by insurer Aioi Nissay Dowa found onboard data showing the driver released the brake and hit the accelerator after the car’s collision warning was activated – about two seconds before impact.

The Toyota did not change direction before striking the other car.

The investigator said the automatic braking system may have prevented the smash had the accelerator not been pressed.

They also found the Kluger had stopped at the crash site for about 15 minutes about an hour before the impact.

Related article: AFCA bemoans ‘fishing exercises’ as driver wins claim dispute

The claimant said he stopped there to deal with problems accessing the internet on his phone, and the location was a coincidence.

The third-party driver declined to be part of the insurer’s investigation.

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority notes other discrepancies in the claimant’s account, including his explanation of his movements before the crash and his inability to recall phone conversations with a friend shortly before and after it.

The policyholder disputed the insurer’s investigation findings but provided no expert evidence to challenge them.

AFCA says the evidence “raises serious concerns about the way the loss occurred” and the policyholder “was unable to answer or address numerous inconsistencies” in his account.

The insurer alleged fraud, but AFCA says that in finding “the insurer is not liable for the claimed loss, there is no need to address the other allegations made”.

See the ruling here.