'Not deliberate': suicide attempt motor claim must be paid

A complainant whose teenage son crashed her vehicle in an attempted suicide will have the claim covered after a dispute ruling determined that her insurer was wrong to deny it.

The complainant lodged a claim for damage to her 2021 Volkswagen Polo after her 17-year-old son, referred to as C, collided with a fence and a pole on January 4 last year.

RAA Insurance declined the claim, saying the comprehensive car policy held exclusions relating to “deliberate or intentional” collisions and noting that C had been under the influence of cannabis while he had been driving.

The insurer referred to C’s blood test at the hospital following the crash, which showed his blood contained THC. It also highlighted findings from its forensic medical specialist’s report, which said that the drug use “caused or significantly contributed to the collision”.

However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said the specialist’s report provided a “limited” perspective on C’s condition by not addressing his mental health issues and the impact it had on the crash.

“The only observational evidence provided does not show, on balance, C was under the influence shortly after the crash,” AFCA said.

“Rather, it indicates his demeanour reflected his depressed state, which is consistent with the complainant’s description of C’s ongoing mental health issues.”

The ruling also rejected the insurer’s argument regarding the intentionality of the collision, noting that C had been suffering from mental health issues, including borderline personality disorder, and had attempted suicide previously.

“The available information shows C, on balance, did not deliberately intend to damage the vehicle,” it said.

“Rather, the information shows C’s actions were motivated by his attempt to commit suicide.”

The ruling acknowledged that the policy held exclusions surrounding “wilful and reckless” acts committed by the driver but referred to C’s compromised mental state, which it said severely affected his ability to assess the effects of his actions.

“Based on the finding above that C, on balance, did not possess the mental clarity and capacity to deliberately or intentionally damage the vehicle, I similarly find he was not capable of being aware of the risk or fully aware of the effects of his actions,” AFCA said.

The determination required RAA to accept the claim and compensate the claimant for the total loss of her vehicle. The policy stated that the car was insured for $25,885 or the market value price, depending on whichever was higher.

Click here for the ruling.

– Call Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14 if you need to talk to someone.