Rideshare driver loses dispute after passenger steals car

A rideshare driver who helplessly watched a trusted passenger steal his car through a service station window when he stopped to use an automatic teller machine (ATM) has lost a claim dispute.

The Suncorp comprehensive motor customer was using his vehicle for ridesharing when his opportunistic passenger drove away and damaged it in a collision. The theft left him unable to afford to buy a replacement for his large family and paying for a rental car.

The victim says it would not occur to a reasonable person that this passenger, who had provided identification details to the rideshare firm, would attempt a brazen act of theft when they would easily be caught by police.

Suncorp declined the claim as the insured vehicle was left unattended, unlocked and with the keys inside the vehicle – a specific exclusion under the policy.

“While I empathise with the complainant’s difficult circumstances, the insurer has satisfied its onus to show an exclusion applies,” the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ombudsman said.

“The complainant left the vehicle unattended whilst unlocked with the keys inside.”

The man explained he left the vehicle running so the air-conditioning was on for his passenger. He had hoped for good feedback as low customer ratings would mean he would not be able to work for the rideshare company. His insurance policy was supposed to cover him for incidents in the course of performing duties of his rideshare job, he said, and one requirement was to keep passengers comfortable.

The ATM was next to a front window in view of the parking area, and the driver said he saw the vehicle being stolen from inside the service station and this was captured on CCTV. He argued this meant the vehicle was not unattended because he could still see it, and because it was on camera – a strong deterrent for any would-be thieves.

AFCA said the loss failed the “Starfire test” which requires an insured person must “have a reasonable prospect of preventing unauthorised interference” and “a proximity such that an insured could attempt to prevent unauthorised interference”.

“Whilst I appreciate the complainant may have been able to glance out of the window to view the vehicle outside, I consider the circumstances of the loss would fall within the definition of unattended,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

The driver said the passenger had ‘authorised access’ to his vehicle as the rideshare company had access to all the passenger’s details but Suncorp said the vehicle must be attended by a person known to the policyholder and who is authorised to drive, or be in charge of the vehicle.

Suncorp also said he had little prospect of preventing the theft while inside the service station.

The driver only discovered the vehicle was missing when he returned from using the ATM, it said, and did not have sight of it. His version that he could see the vehicle being driven off was inconsistent with a previous submission he made, Suncorp said, and it was likely he would have been looking at the ATM, not the vehicle, while using it.

AFCA agreed the driver did not have a reasonable prospect of preventing unauthorised interference.

“The complainant trusted the passenger as they were a customer of the rideshare company, with all details provided to this company. However, I consider the purpose of this exclusion is to cover a circumstance where someone unknown to the complainant uses the vehicle when unauthorised to do so,” the ruling said.

“This means the passenger’s act of theft was ‘unauthorised interference’.”

See the full ruling here.