A beauty salon owner and serial claimant who said $200,000 worth of jewellery and other possessions had been stolen from her car has failed to convince the industry ombudsman that the luxury items were in the vehicle.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority also said the policyholder had failed to prove ownership of some of the items.  

But the ombudsman said it did not need to determine whether fraud had occurred, as alleged by insurer IAG, because the complainant had not established that an insured theft took place. 

IAG denied the claim after identifying anomalies in the complainant’s account. It said its decision to investigate the case was also influenced by an extensive claims history, including nine theft-related claims over the previous 15 years.  

The woman hired two lawyers “due to the seriousness of the insurer’s fraud allegation”, AFCA said, and sought payment of the claim, legal costs, and compensation for stress, anxiety and reputational damage. 

The claimed items included a $101,000 diamond engagement ring, a $55,000 Rolex watch, a $14,000 wedding band and two diamond bracelets valued at $40,000 and $15,000. 

The complainant said she removed jewellery during a staff training session at her salon, placed it in a tote bag and left the bag in her vehicle, which was parked in the gated driveway of her home. She discovered the bag missing five days later. 

AFCA identified inconsistencies in her accounts of the training session, including whether it involved existing staff or prospective employees, where the bag had been placed and how she discovered the loss. 

It ruled she had not provided persuasive evidence that the jewellery and watch had been placed in the bag or that the bag had been left in the vehicle.  

It also queried why items of such value had apparently been left in the vehicle for several days.

The woman attributed the alleged theft to juveniles suspected of committing crimes in the area. However, AFCA noted that the youths had been apprehended before the likely time of the theft, no stolen property had been recovered and police had expressed doubts about her account.  

The complainant established ownership of the tote bag, antique key ring, Rolex watch, engagement ring and wedding band, but not Gucci sandals, Hermes scarf or two diamond bracelets. 

AFCA rejected the request for legal costs, saying the investigation had been prompted by evidence it considered implausible, together with the complainant’s claims history. 

It also declined to award compensation for non-financial loss saying: “The complainant’s evidence about the circumstances of the alleged theft have been found to lack credibility. I am therefore compelled to apply caution regarding her claims about the adverse consequences (such as stress and reputational damage) she says she has experienced because of the insurer’s claim management.”

Click here for the full ruling.