Car Collector Fails in Bid for $122k Insurance Windfall

8

The dispute began when the owner's 2005 HSV Coupe GTO Z Series succumbed to flames in March of the previous year. RACQ Insurance accepted the total loss and initially valued the vehicle at $68,000.

However, the unsatisfied owner declined this offer, leading to an independent valuation which described the car as being in “good condition for its age and mileage” despite its 315,000km on the odometer.

Although comparable lower-mileage vehicles were advertised above $81,000, the heavy usage severely reduced its collectible appeal, the independent valuer noted. Conclusively, the evaluator deemed the insurer's offer reasonable.

The car owner contested this, alleging RACQ Insurance's assessment was flawed, particularly regarding the engine type and the car's rarity as one of only 60 manual transmission models, asserting its condition was excellent.

In response, RACQ revised their offer to $78,000 factoring in the vehicle's unique modifications and reconditioned engine, but the claimant stood firm in his refusal.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), upon review, sided with the insurer. AFCA deemed RACQ Insurance's valuation and the independent assessment to be “logical, well-considered and helpful.”

According to Glass's Guide referenced by the AFCA, the vehicle's maximum estimated market value could not exceed $58,100, considering its age and mileage. Although rare, evidence was insufficient to justify a $200,000 evaluation.

The AFCA stated, “The complainant has not provided persuasive evidence to demonstrate the vehicle's worth is beyond what the insurer offered. Under such conditions, adjusting the settlement upward would not be justifiable.”

Reference: Original findings from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's ruling were sourced from RACQ Insurance's appeal letter. Read more about the decision here.

Published:Wednesday, 24th Jul 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more