Key issue leaves car owner uncovered
A motorist whose car was stolen when he left the keys under the handbrake while unloading shopping will not be covered for his loss.
The claimant left his 2018 MG ZS across the street from his home as he carried groceries from the vehicle to his property’s fence, about 15 metres away.
Several windows and doors were left open and the car was taken a few minutes after being parked. Police later found it severely damaged.
Insurer Allianz denied the motorist’s theft claim on the grounds he contributed to the loss by leaving the vehicle unattended with keys inside.
The policy required the insured to “take all reasonable care to prevent loss” and noted: “Ignition keys should not be left in the vehicle when no one is inside.”
The claimant argued he had to park across the street because of traffic and his actions were reasonable.
| Related article: AFCA sides with insurer in Porsche write-off row |
In a dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the claimant left the car “vulnerable to theft”.
“Even a brief absence or momentary distraction can result in a vehicle being considered unattended, particularly when it is parked across the street, exposed to passing traffic and pedestrians, and left unlocked with the keys inside,” AFCA said.
“Although the complainant says the vehicle was within his ‘line of sight’, at the time of the theft he was ... unloading groceries with his back turned and did not witness or hear the theft.
“This indicates he was not in a position to continuously observe any attempt to interfere with the vehicle and, therefore, did not meet the criteria for the vehicle to be considered ‘attended’.”
The car owner – who required a translator during the insurer’s investigation and was represented by a support worker in his complaint – told AFCA he suffered “significant emotional distress” due to his claim experience.
The authority says Allianz processed the claim “in a timely and reasonable manner” but should pay $1000 compensation because it could have “taken further measures to accommodate the complainant’s vulnerabilities”.
See the ruling here.