‘Startling coincidence’: AFCA backs insurer’s fraud finding on bike theft
A motorbike owner who applied for a theft payout within 24 hours of buying insurance has had his claim dismissed as fraudulent.
The claimant said he discovered his Ducati Panigale stolen after returning home from a friend’s house on August 16 last year.
But IAG said the policyholder provided false information about his criminal record, employment and the time of the alleged theft, and he supplied keys that did not work on the vehicle.
It said he gave incorrect vehicle identification numbers (VIN) during a claim investigation, and it had received third-party information suggesting the bike was not in a working condition.
IAG also pointed to a financial motive for a fake claim, saying the vehicle was insured for an agreed value of $42,000, notably more than the man paid for it.
It said it was possible the bike was sold, noting one VIN provided matched a bike that was in Ducati Melbourne’s inventory at the time of the theft.
More from AFCA: Hotel’s early-pandemic ‘covid case’ fails to convince ombudsman |
The claimant said the VIN and time-of-theft discrepancies were mistakes and the information provided by the third party was false.
He disagreed with the insurer’s forensic locksmith, arguing the keys he provided could operate multiple vehicles, including his.
In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says IAG raised “serious concerns regarding the validity of the claim” and the policyholder has not appropriately addressed them.
“The complainant was in possession of the motorbike for almost two months without insurance, then within 24 hours of obtaining insurance the loss occurs,” AFCA said. “This would be a startling coincidence, if true.”
The authority finds IAG’s evidence “compelling and suitable” for it to deny the claim.
“The insurer has provided sufficient information establishing the claim was submitted fraudulently.
“The complainant has been unable to provide any compelling information establishing he has a valid claim or that the loss occurred in the way he described.”
See the ruling here.