A motorist who veered off the road and smashed into a tree has been denied a payout after his insurer showed he was driving recklessly.

The claimant was leading a four-car convoy of friends on their way home to Sydney after a day trip to the Central Coast when, he said, an animal on the road caused him to swerve through a guard rail.

He said he was familiar with the road and was driving normally before the crash in September 2023.  

Insurer IAG interviewed one of the friends travelling in a car behind, who said he did not see the animal and was unsure what caused the crash. The friend said he was travelling about 60km/h – the speed limit – but he declined to estimate the claimant’s speed.

The insurer’s mechanic investigated the claimant’s car and said the tyres showed evidence of “enthusiast driving” – abrasive wear from excess heat.  

IAG also engaged a forensic crash investigator, who said the claimant was travelling about 99km/h about three seconds before the crash and 64km/h a second before.  

The investigator suggested the claimant was “drifting” on a left-hand bend at 99km/h before losing control. They said even if an animal ran across the road, the complainant’s “extremely aggressive manner of driving” was the primary reason for the crash.  

“It is my considered opinion that the insured’s apparent manner of driving leading to impact was clearly dangerous and more than likely deliberate, thereby synonymous with reckless driving behaviour,” the investigator said.

IAG declined the damage claim due to reckless use of the vehicle.  

The complainant said he was not drifting, noting he did not know how to do so. He said he was unsure if drifting was possible in his all-wheel-drive vehicle.  

He said police had not charged him with driving offences over the crash, and he was a risk-averse driver. He argued the investigator’s report was inaccurate or unreliable.  

But in a dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says it is “more likely than not the complainant was using the vehicle in a reckless manner immediately before the accident”.  

It finds the investigator’s report persuasive and says driving up to 39km/h above the speed limit showed a “lack of caution or care for potential consequences that is more than negligence or mere carelessness”.

An AFCA ombudsman added: “I consider it was reckless, the risk of an accident was reasonably foreseeable, and I am satisfied the complainant consciously disregarded that risk.”  

It says it is not necessary to consider whether the complainant was drifting, because the excessive speed is enough to show reckless behaviour.  

Click here for the ruling.