A motorist who said his car was dented when he fought off an attempted theft will not receive a payout after his insurer uncovered misrepresentations about pre-existing damage.

The claimant said he grappled with the crook late at night and in the struggle his vehicle was hit by an object that damaged panels and the interior. 

He told insurer Suncorp’s investigator the car had “light panel damage” when he bought it but he was not looking to claim for that.  

He later described that damage as “a couple of hits around the car, rear quarter panel, bumper bar, and a couple of other dents in the doors”. He did not specify what caused it. 

Suncorp obtained photographs from the auctioneer who sold the car, showing damage on the front, sides and rear. It suggested this appeared “similar to the claimed damage”.  

The insurer argued the vehicle owner’s mother – who bought the comprehensive cover – misrepresented the car’s condition by answering “no” to an application form question about existing damage beyond minor scratches or general wear and tear. 

It said its underwriting guidelines prohibited it from offering comprehensive coverage for cars with pre-existing damage.  

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the policy clearly informed the insured of the duty to “take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation”, as dictated by the Insurance Contracts Act.  

The motorist should have told the insurer of the damage. His interview responses indicated he was aware of it when the policy was purchased, AFCA says. 

While the vehicle may have been “mechanically sound”, the damage was “more than minor scratches and wear and tear”.  

“I am satisfied the exchanged information shows the complainant failed to take reasonable care not to make a representation regarding the damage to his vehicle, and that the insurer would not have offered cover but for the misrepresentation,” an AFCA ombudsman said. 

“Therefore, the insurer is entitled to reduce its liability to nil and decline the claim.”

Because it would not have offered comprehensive cover, Suncorp is to refund those premiums. 

It must also pay $500 compensation for inconvenience caused when the vehicle’s keys were lost while in its care.  

See the ruling here.