Fast car: motorist loses clash over replacement vehicle
A motor policyholder who rushed to buy a new car on the assumption his damaged one would be written off has lost a bid for reimbursement of associated costs.
The insured lodged a claim for a no-fault crash last September, and it was accepted by Auto & General.
He said one of the insurer’s agents told him on October 4 that the vehicle would be written off, so four days later he bought a replacement.
Seeking reimbursement from Auto & General, the policyholder told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority that if he had known the damaged car would in fact not be written off – and it would take three months for a settlement – he would not have bought the replacement.
But AFCA says a recording of the October 4 phone conversation shows the insurer’s agent provided no assurance that the vehicle would be written off.
“The insurer’s agent explains the vehicle is expected to be written off, so a further assessment is needed at a holding yard,” the authority said.
| More from AFCA: Traveller denied payout after illness blamed on covid case |
“The insurer’s agent says once an assessor has viewed the car, there will be a final outcome on whether the vehicle is repairable or will be a write-off.”
AFCA says Auto & General settled the claim in reasonable time, and it was the claimant’s choice to buy a new vehicle before the matter was finalised.
“The insurer is not responsible for the complainant’s decision to purchase a replacement vehicle before the claim had been settled, and the policy does not cover other costs (such as stamp duty on the new vehicle). As such, it would not be fair to require the insurer to pay these costs,” AFCA said.
The complainant also wanted compensation for stress caused by the insurer’s claims handling.
He said Auto & General neglected to return his calls, and told him to obtain the third-party driver’s address from police – a request that was denied – to waive his excess.
AFCA notes the policy required the other driver’s address or the claim would be considered at-fault. It says it is a legal requirement to exchange details after an accident.
However, the insurer accepted responsibility for actions causing delays and “failed to respond to certain detailed and credible concerns raised by the complainant in relation to claims handling issues”. The policyholder has been awarded $1000 for non-financial losses.
See the ruling here.