Brought to you by:

Motorist loses $64k claim row after BMW parked in wrong spot

A company director whose sports car was stolen from his driveway at night has lost a claim dispute with his insurer.

The BMW M4 was recovered, badly damaged, on New Year’s Day last year – about three days after it was taken. The owner sought $64,304 for repairs under a Prevail Insurance prestige motor policy. 

But a clause in the policy required the car to be parked in a garage between 10pm and 5am, and the insurer rejected the claim. 

Prevail said parking in front of the home revealed to thieves where the car and its keys were located, thereby contributing to the loss. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says Prevail has shown it would not have continued to cover the car had it been notified of overnight driveway parking. 

“By parking the car in the driveway, the complainant prejudiced the insurer to the extent that the insurer is entitled to refuse the claim,” the authority said. 

More from AFCA: Caravan fire was no accident, ombudsman rules

“This is because the complainant was putting the insurer on risk for circumstances which the insurer was not willing to insure.” 

The company director said the thieves entered his home through an unlocked laundry door, found car keys and a garage remote on the hallway sideboard, and stole the car. 

The house had internal entry to the garage, and he argued the car would have been taken even if it was parked there. 

Parking in the driveway was a one-off, he said, so there was no continuous change in parking arrangements that required notification to the insurer. 

Even if he told the insurer about the change of parking as soon as possible, the theft would still have occurred, the director added. 

But an AFCA ombudsman said: “I accept that parking a car on the driveway, rather than in a garage, would make it more likely for the theft of the vehicle to occur. 

“Therefore, I am satisfied this act can reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to the loss.” 

See the ruling here.