An Uber driver whose car was damaged on his first day back after a long spell away from ride-share work has won a claim dispute, with the complaints authority finding he did not misrepresent his vehicle’s use when buying insurance.

The man lodged a claim after being rear-ended at traffic lights about 45 minutes after dropping off a passenger, and with no other pick-up requests pending.  

Auto & General declined the claim because the driver had listed his vehicle as being for “private and commuting” purposes when buying the policy about six weeks before the crash.  

It said if it knew the car was used for ride-share work, it would not have considered it an acceptable risk. 

The insurer provided information showing the complainant registered his name and vehicle with Uber in December 2019.  

It also referred the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to an interview with the claimant in which he admitted doing ride-share work a few days a week – although the ombudsman says it is unclear which time period this refers to.

In the interview, the man said he registered the vehicle for private use because he was expecting to get another job, but that fell through.

He said he had been advised to change insurer if he was going to work for Uber, but he forgot.  

The driver acknowledged he registered for an Uber account in 2019 but said he stopped driving in March 2020 and only started again on October 6 last year – the night of the accident.  

In its ruling, AFCA says it is “not satisfied the exchanged information shows the complainant was Uber driving at the time of incepting the policy in August 2024”.  

It notes there was no activity on the man’s Uber account between March 2020 and last August.  

“It was reasonable for the complainant to say the vehicle was not used for Uber driving if he was not using it for this purpose,” AFCA said.

“There is no persuasive evidence this representation was incorrect.”  

The authority acknowledges the policy required the man to tell the insurer about changes to vehicle use “as soon as practicable”, but it says a reasonable time frame would be within a “couple of days”.  

Auto & General also said its policy excluded losses while “carrying passengers for payment”. It argued the claimant would not have been in the crash location if he was not doing ride-share work.  

But AFCA says the exclusion does not apply because there were no passengers at the time of the damage.  

Auto & General has been told to accept the claim, pay for a hire car and provide $1500 compensation for stress caused by its incorrect decision. It is entitled to cancel the policy after accepting the claim.

See the ruling here.