An insurer has been ordered to settle on a burnt-out Range Rover after failing to convince the ombudsman the claimant lied about the fire.

IAG argued inconsistencies in statements from the motor policyholder, her partner and his father “differ to an extent that cannot be reconciled” and they were not “truthful and frank”. It rejected the damage claim.

The policyholder told the insurer her vehicle broke down on the side of a road and was left overnight because she could not arrange a tow.

Police contacted her the following morning to say it had been set alight.

IAG noted differences between her and her partner’s recollections on the timing of events, who had taken photographs and whether dashboard warning lights had illuminated before the breakdown.

It also raised concerns about the partner’s “extensive criminal history, including multiple charges and convictions for driving under the influence of drugs, dealing with the proceeds of crime and supplying drugs”.

Related article: Motorist’s ‘unknown’ convictions claim fails to persuade AFCA

A fire investigator hired by the insurer concluded an accelerant had been introduced at three locations and identified a rag covered in an “ignitable liquid” in the engine bay.

But the claimant’s partner said he and his father had used that rag to clean an oil spill after attempting to restart the vehicle.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority finds it more likely the substance on the rag was oil from the spill, rather than evidence of arson by the occupants.

It notes the rag was found in an area of the vehicle unaffected by fire damage. The fire had started towards the rear, undermining the investigator’s evidence.

AFCA acknowledges differences between the woman and partner’s accounts but is not satisfied the insurer has shown anyone lied.

It says the attending fire service officer “had no concerns about the legitimacy of the loss at the scene”.

An AFCA member concluded: “None of the concerns raised persuade me that there are legitimate reasons not to pay the claim, or to reduce the level of cover.”

See the ruling here.