An insurer was entitled to reject a car crash claim as fraudulent as a Jeep was covered for far more than it was worth and forensic evidence contradicted the policyholder’s account of events, the industry ombudsman has ruled.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority found that the complainant knowingly made false statements about his Jeep which he bought for just over $36,000 but insured for $64,000, and that Suncorp had enough evidence to establish that the claim was fraudulent. 

Apart from being unable to explain why he had over-insured the vehicle, AFCA found that hardly any of the man’s statements were consistent.  

He said the December 2023 crash happened as he turned onto a major arterial road driving home from Bunnings. Yet the most direct route went nowhere near that road, AFCA said. 

He had a receipt for some paint from Bunnings at 3.28pm yet could not explain the six-hour gap before the crash at 9.39pm. Almost two years later, after the claim had been rejected, the man complained to AFCA and then claimed he had been visiting a friend who lived near the major road.  

The insurer’s forensic expert found the damage to the Jeep did not match the man’s description of the crash. The driver side showed impact damage, indicating a head-on collision, and red paint transfer. Yet the Mercedes which collided with him was white.  

Damage to the Mercedes included a guard panel which had been torn by a small sharp hard object, which the Jeep did not have. There was no evidence of a collision at the intersection location and AFCA also dismissed as "not plausible" his assertion of not being able to see the oncoming car due to rain.  

Paint was found splashed around inside the Jeep, yet the Bunnings tins were unopened, an inconsistency the man could not explain. 

Suncorp said there was an opportunity to stage a fake accident as there were no CCTV cameras or witnesses on the small road leading into the major road.  

The man also had clear motive for lodging a fraudulent claim, with bank statements showing he had no savings or investments. He had also not insured his other cars, or the Jeep until a month before the crash.  

But the insurer did not provide to AFCA any information showing what it had done to investigate the Mercedes driver, or whether he knew the complainant.   

AFCA said: “I am satisfied the collision did not occur the way the complainant says it did (and) knowingly made false statements to induce the insurer to accept the claim.” 

Click here to read the full ruling.