Ombudsman Directs RACT Insurance to Honour Car Crash Claim Despite Undisclosed Damage
Ombudsman Directs RACT Insurance to Honour Car Crash Claim Despite Undisclosed Damage
1
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has intervened to instruct RACT Insurance to process a claim for a policyholder who failed to disclose prior damage to his four-wheel drive.
Initially, when securing the insurance over the phone, the owner described the vehicle as being in "good shape" with only minor scratches.
However, post-accident assessments by RACT revealed damage that seemed to have existed before the incident.
According to the claimant, the superficial damage to parts such as panels, bumpers, and the tailgate occurred in two separate instances only after purchasing the policy. RACT acknowledged these claims of post-policy incidents but argued that they didn't explain all the observed damage, suggesting a misrepresentation of the vehicle's condition at the time of policy commencement.
Despite recognising the policyholder's partial misrepresentation, AFCA highlighted that RACT had not definitively proven it would have declined insurance had the accurate condition been disclosed. The insurer's guidelines indicate that cars with "extensive damage" are automatically ineligible for coverage; however, those with "some damage" may still qualify. AFCA determined that the identified damage likened more to "some damage" than the "extensive damage" that would categorically void coverage.
This determination underscores the significance of transparent communication between policyholders and insurers regarding vehicle conditions. It highlights the thresholds insurance companies apply in policy evaluations and the necessity of their transparency. This decision not only affects the insured's entitlement to coverage but also serves as a key precedent for similar cases, promoting greater clarity about what constitutes significant pre-existing damage that could deny coverage.
The decision sets a vital precedent in the insurance industry, reinforcing the need for clear disclosure guidelines and policies that articulate what qualifies as unacceptable pre-existing damage. Insurers might need to revisit and possibly adjust their underwriting criteria to ensure alignment with regulatory expectations and reduce disputes. For the consumer, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of full disclosure and understanding the conditions under which their policy operates.
Published:Friday, 3rd Oct 2025 Source: Paige Estritori
Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.
Australia's insurance industry is experiencing a significant shift as mental health conditions have become the leading cause of total and permanent disability (TPD) claims. Recent data from the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) indicates that mental health issues now account for nearly one-third of all TPD claims, marking a substantial change in the industry's claim patterns. - read more
Australian Super, one of the nation's largest superannuation funds, is facing criticism over significant delays in processing insurance claims, particularly those related to income protection and total and permanent disability (TPD). Members have reported prolonged waiting periods, leading to financial hardships and uncertainty. - read more
The Australian government has enacted legislation prohibiting life insurers from using the results of genetic tests to refuse coverage or increase premiums. This landmark decision aims to eliminate genetic discrimination and encourage individuals to undergo potentially life-saving genetic testing without fear of financial repercussions. - read more
Recent investigations have revealed that Maritime Mutual, a New Zealand-based insurance company, has been providing coverage to tankers involved in transporting sanctioned Iranian and Russian oil. This development has sparked significant regulatory scrutiny and raised questions about compliance within the marine insurance industry. - read more
This website is owned and operated by Clark Family Pty Ltd (ACN 010 281 008) as Trustee for the Clark Family Trust (ABN 35 957 893 714), 43 Larch Street Tallebudgera QLD 4228. Clark Family Pty Ltd is an Authorised Representative (AR 1298860) of Unique Group Broker Services Pty Ltd (AFSL 509434) for financial product referrals and an Authorised Credit Representative (ACR 401491) of Saccasan Pty Ltd (ACL 386297). Check our licensing details on the ASIC registers: Clark Family Pty Ltd ACR, Clark Family Pty Ltd AR, Saccasan Pty Ltd, Unique Group Broker Services.IMPORTANT: We do not provide financial product advice or credit assistance. We act solely as an introducer and refer enquiries to licensed third-party intermediaries, insurers, and lenders - with whom you can then deal directly. We may receive a fee or commission from these third parties in consideration for the referral. Before any action is taken to obtain a product or service referred to by this website, advice should be obtained (from either the third party to whom we refer you or from another qualified intermediary) as to the appropriateness of obtaining those products having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. Whilst we have our own process for validating the legitimacy of our referral partners, you should always verify the credentials of your financial adviser before proceeding with recommendations that they may present. Visit the ASIC website for further information.
Web design and construction by:
Clark Family Pty Ltd
A.C.N. 010 281 008 Copyright 2004 - all
rights reserved
