A Porsche owner has lost his bid for a damage payout because he failed to disclose driving offences that would have made him uninsurable.

The policyholder reported the loss following an attempted theft in September 2024 that also left him with serious injuries.

But during an investigation, Lloyd’s Australia found the man had committed seven offences over the past five years. 

He had declared on a policy questionnaire that he had committed no traffic offences in the past three years that resulted in a conviction, penalty or demerit points.   

The insurer declined the claim and cancelled the man’s policy, stating its underwriting guidelines deemed anyone with six or more driving offences or convictions in the previous three years an unacceptable risk. 

The claimant said his policy, bought 12 days before the claim, was arranged by his wife, who passed information to their broker.

Related article: Business or leisure? AFCA decides in drug damage case

The man’s wife said she was unaware of her husband’s driving offences and believed the question asked about licence suspensions only. 

The broker said most insurers did not ask about infringements or demerit points and the couple made an “honest mistake”, skimming the question and assuming it was like those posed by other insurers.  

The claimant also argued his driving history was irrelevant to the claim, because it did not contribute to the loss. 

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the complainant or his wife should have taken the time to understand the question. 

Their failure to do so led to a breach of their duty to provide accurate information. 

The policy was clear on the importance of giving “true, complete and accurate answers to our questions, including where you provide information on someone else's behalf”.  

The wife’s interpretation of the traffic offence question was clearly incorrect and she could have consulted the broker for clarification or asked her husband about his driving history. 

The man’s driving history was relevant to the claim because the insurer would not have insured him if the offences were disclosed, AFCA says.  

See the ruling here. 

---

For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine

---