A motorist seeking more than $50,000 to cover flood damage to her Audi has lost a claim dispute after video footage did not match her version of events.

She lodged her claim with Suncorp in 2021, saying she had driven into a flooded section of road late at night, having failed to spot the danger in advance.

But she was unaware CCTV had been installed at the site following similar incidents.

A mechanical assessment later showed the car’s “limp home mode” had been triggered more than 76 times in the 10 months before the claim, indicating a serious defect was present even after the Queensland woman spent about $10,000 replacing the engine in 2020.

Suncorp said there was a financial motive to commit fraud, because the major electrical issues would have been costly to repair.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agrees the claim appears fraudulent. It says there was opportunity for a staged incident at night with no independent witnesses.

The woman lived locally and knew the area was prone to flooding, and family members had been involved in identical incidents in the same location.

“Considering the inconsistencies and omissions in the complainant’s version of events, alongside the insurance submission on motive, opportunity, character and credibility, I am satisfied that a finding of fraud is warranted,” an AFCA ombudsman said.

The woman said she had followed a white ute into the flooded section of the road, and after leaving the Audi there she called her parents to pick her up.

But CCTV footage showed there was no white ute, and another vehicle had stopped on the opposite side of the flood, illuminating the road ahead of her with its headlights.

The Audi paused for 90 seconds before entering the floodwater, and a pedestrian gestured while she moved her car back and forth. She then left the car and ran towards the pedestrian.  

Phone records showed that before entering the water, she had attempted to call her father twice. She connected with him as she entered the floodwater for 38 seconds, then made no further calls to her parents and contacted Suncorp about nine minutes later.  

“I am not persuaded the complainant’s actions were consistent with those of a reasonable person exercising caution,” the ombudsman said.

“I am more persuaded the complainant’s actions were intentional and the flooding risk was foreseeable.”

The claimant said police withdrew criminal charges against her, which “proves her innocence”.  

But the ombudsman says she did not establish the incident was unexpected and she had a financial motive to commit fraud.

“The complainant’s version of events contains inconsistencies and omissions, which the complainant has failed to adequately address. I am not persuaded that stress and trauma is a compelling explanation.” 

See the ruling here.  

From the latest Insurance News magazine: Why nightmarish hallucinations (of the AI kind) are keeping business leaders awake at night