A former intelligence officer who received death threats has won a dispute with his insurer over his refusal to provide “voluminous” phone and financial information to support a burglary claim.

The complainant previously held “top-secret” government clearance and remained in contact with former associates in national security and defence. He said providing all the information requested by Suncorp could expose him and others to danger if it leaked or records were breached.

He made his claim after thieves broke a glass panel beside a door and stole high-value items including stereo components, an Omega watch and a Prada handbag.

The complainant was at a concert and his wife and son were visiting family interstate.

Suncorp declined the claim because of non-cooperation, saying the policyholder failed to provide mobile and landline records for June 1-15 last year, financial statements for accounts held in his name or jointly from April 1 to July 1 last year, and proof of ownership for the stolen items.

Instead, he offered 48 hours of telecommunication records, proof of balance on financial accounts, online wagering account screenshots, asset and liability details, and information on an in-progress inheritance settlement.

Related article: AFCA rejects medic’s bid to downgrade sex assault allegation

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says given the complainant’s unusual professional experience, it is satisfied the insurer sought overly broad and burdensome information, which verged on being a “fishing expedition”.

The complainant offered what appears to be suitable information in lieu of the “voluminous amount of telephone and financial records requested”.

The authority says that although the risk of a privacy breach is low, in this case it would carry “relatively dire” consequences not just for the complainant but for others in the national security and defence industries.

The policyholder had “received a number of threats on his life electronically over the past year. He has reported those threats to the police and assumes they relate to his previous employment.”

The insured presents as a person of integrity and credibility, his security clearances involved in-depth background checks, and he is seeking entry to his state’s legal Bar at year-end, AFCA says.

“Police have at no stage inferred or claimed that the insured event was in any way staged, that it is not wholly legitimate, or that the complainant, or parties known to him, were in any way involved in the theft and burglary.

“The insurer has presented no persuasive information to displace this evidence.”

The insurer has been told to revoke its claim denial and make a new decision based on the evidence it has.

See the decision here.