Luxury vehicle owner loses 'opportunistic theft' dispute

The owner of a stolen 2019 Mercedes AMG G Wagon will not be covered for its loss after a dispute ruling determined that his insurer was entitled to decline the claim after he failed to store the vehicle appropriately overnight.

The complainant lodged a claim on August 6 last year, under his company’s comprehensive motor vehicle policy, after burglars had stolen the car a week before.

The crooks entered the claimant’s home, took the car keys from the first-floor bedroom and drove away some time after 2am. The thieves had also earlier entered the building’s ground floor and stolen the keys to another of the man’s vehicles.

The insurer, SGUAS, declined the claim, saying the policy had a specific exclusion if the vehicle was not parked in an identified off-street location between the hours of 10pm to 5am.

The insurer says the policy informed the complainant that the vehicle must be stored in an “individual garage” to reduce the likelihood of an “opportunistic theft”.

The vehicle owner acknowledged that he was aware of the condition but said circumstances out of his control required him to park the car on the driveway that night. He also admitted that it was not the first time the vehicle had not been parked in the garage.

SGUAS said if it was aware that the vehicle was regularly not parked in the appropriate location, it would have ceased cover and declared the car an uninsurable risk.

The claimant argued that even if the vehicle was stored in the garage, it still would have been stolen because the burglars had access to the house and garage.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said the policy had precise requirements regarding the vehicle’s storage that the complainant failed to uphold.

The panel considered Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), which prevents insurers from denying claims for post-contractual acts unless it can be shown that the action contributed to the loss or prejudiced the insurer’s interest.

AFCA said SGUAS was prejudiced, given the complainant did not notify it that the car was not parked in the garage. It also said that the decision to leave the vehicle on the driveway likely presented the thieves with an opportunity they would not have had if the car had been stored inside.

The claimant argued that the clause did not apply to his current policy, saying that the renewal documentation made no reference to off-street parking requirements. He also referred to a change in the name of the business on the renewal documentation from the previous policy documents.

The man said the insurer should have made a specific reference to the condition for it to apply to the current policy.

The panel rejected this argument, saying documents provided by the policyholder’s broker from April 6 identified the declared storage location for the vehicle as an “individual garage.”

AFCA also ruled out the contention that the change of business meant that the condition was no longer applicable. It said the policy documents provided by the insurer on April 30 last year identified the business and complainant’s name.

The panel said the wording of the broker’s document had been inconsistent with the insurer’s document and that the claimant was in a position to inform the broker about any applicable amendments.

The ruling determined that SGUAS was not required to accept the claim.

Click here for the full ruling.