A motorist’s account of swerving to avoid an animal and hitting an abandoned truck has been labelled “not credible”.

The RACQ Insurance policyholder lodged a claim for damage to his Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, saying he went to a cruise terminal to collect a friend and the pair were driving home through an industrial estate about 8.30pm.

While travelling about 50km/h, an animal appeared from the left side of the road, he said. He swerved left to avoid it, braked and skidded. The SUV then hit a truck that had been stolen and abandoned for months.

The driver said both airbags deployed and the pair had to adjust their seats to get out.

But RACQ found anomalies in the story, including that the friend recalled the animal coming from the right side, not the left, and stated he had been at someone's house – not returning from a cruise.

A forensic expert found the crash evidence was “consistent with an intentional act” and RACQ declared the claim fraudulent.

Related article: Of course it’s a buggy, but off course it’s not covered

In a dispute ruling, an Australian Financial Complaints Authority member says the damage did not occur as reported.

“I do not consider the complainant’s ... version of the loss is credible,” the ombudsman said. “The exchanged material does not show the collision occurred consistent with the forensic evidence or the recollections of the complainant and his friend.

“It also appears the complainant was untruthful about his employment situation.”

The man told an RACQ investigator he worked as a truck driver and did not use the car much, but he later said the car was his only source of income and it emerged he was a ride-share operator.

The car’s odometer indicated more than 100,000km of use in about two years. RACQ said this meant it was worth about $10,000 less than its insured value of $23,000.

The forensic expert found the vehicle made a “slow, deliberate turn into the parked truck”, recording a pre-impact speed of 37km/h in a 60km/h zone; there was no passenger in the vehicle at the time of impact; and the car did not skid.

They also found the seat was not in a practical driving position but one that would lessen the impact of a crash, and its placement was not post-accident to allow an exit.

“The driver’s seatbelt had abrasion load markings consistent with it being fastened with the driver’s seat situated ‘back on its runners’, which was impractical for driving,” the expert said.

Load markings on the passenger seatbelt were “inconsistent with being around someone’s body”, and 1.5 seconds before impact the driver eased off the accelerator.

A 2-degree steering wheel turn was “inconsistent with the driver taking sudden evasive action”, and it was unclear why he would swerve left if the animal appeared from that side.

Scratches on the bonnet were consistent with someone using a crowbar to force it open.

See the ruling here.

---

From the latest Insurance News magazine: A multibillion-dollar row over chemical contamination looks set to create a test case for the insurance industry

---