AFCA Ruling: Trucking Firm's Claim Invalid Due to Misrepresentation

1

The issue arose when the firm, led by a sole director identified as "B," sought insurance through a broker. The truck, valued at $82,500, was purchased from "C," the director of another company called "CT". The insurance application falsely stated the company had two years of prior operational and insurance history. Additionally, the declared operational radius was less than 600 km, despite the truck operating interstate.

NTI, upon reviewing the claim, refunded the premiums and rejected the coverage, citing misrepresentation. AFCA supported NTI's decision, reinforcing that no previous insurance was held by the complainant, who had operated for only 19 months. AFCA highlighted that while the business relationship with CT may have confused the broker, a reasonable person wouldn't have provided such misleading information.

This case underscores the critical nature of transparency and accuracy in insurance applications. Misrepresentations, whether inadvertent or deliberate, can lead to denied claims and significant financial repercussions. For businesses, particularly those engaging in partnerships or involving third-party brokers, this ruling serves as a reminder of the due diligence required when disclosing insurance history and operational specifics.

The decision also illustrates the strict adherence to policy stipulations regarding insurance history—a key criterion for coverage eligibility. For consumers, it highlights the importance of understanding the details of insurance applications and the potential impact of inaccurate disclosures.

The ruling may prompt businesses to review their insurance policies and application processes, ensuring alignment with operational realities and disclosure requirements. It serves as a cautionary tale for companies relying on brokers or partners to manage insurance applications, emphasizing the need for oversight to prevent costly mistakes.

For insurers, this case could lead to more rigorous checks during the application assessment to verify client information, reducing the risk of similar occurrences. As the financial services landscape evolves, such cases might influence further regulatory updates to safeguard both insurers and policyholders.

Published:Thursday, 10th Apr 2025
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