A Vintage Car Owner Faces Claims Rejection After Repair Nightmare

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

The Pontiac, originally purchased from the United States in 2014, was in need of refurbishment to restore its former glory by 2021. In December of that year, the car owner approached a repair shop, designated here as Shop N, which provided a restoration estimate of $12,000. Little did he know that this choice would lead him down a troublesome path.

By July 2022, the owner became increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress on his vehicle. In an effort to reclaim his car, he arranged for a former employee of Shop N, referred to here as Shop C, to retrieve the vehicle. However, he claimed that Shop N refused to release the car, leading him to lodge a theft report with his insurance company, SGUAS.

In a strange twist, the owner later revealed to SGUAS that the vehicle had indeed been found. He stated that Shop C had taken the car after allegedly threatening the repair shop's owner. With the car in Shop C’s possession, the owner paid $6,000 for necessary repairs, believing his vehicle was in capable hands.

Despite assurances that work was progressing smoothly, the owner’s confidence waned when he could not ascertain the storage location of his car. When he visited Shop C’s facility in March 2023, he was informed that his vehicle was unavailable, sparking another theft report when communication broke down.

As investigations unfolded, it became apparent that Shop C had stored the Pontiac in a paid location but had failed to prevent damage from corrosion and missing parts. The insurer SGUAS ultimately denied the owner’s claims, asserting the circumstances did not qualify as theft. They reasoned that since the owner had permitted both Shop N and Shop C to handle his vehicle, it could not be considered stolen.

This ruling, released by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), clarified that while the claim was rooted in distressing events, it did not meet the criteria for theft as defined under the insurance policy. Both repairers were found to have inadequate responses to queries regarding the car's condition, but AFCA concluded that the owner's authorization to the repairers negated the theft claim.

“It is not clear whether the damage is malicious or just a byproduct of negligence,” AFCA detailed in its findings. The report indicated that Shop C, after disassembling parts of the vehicle, exhibited an inability or unwillingness to complete the repairs, further complicating the ordeal.

The AFCA noted, “The situation is significant and distressing for the claimant,” nonetheless confirming that the terms of the insurance policy would not cover the circumstances described. Insurance experts recommend that vehicle owners conduct thorough due diligence before committing to a repair shop, ensuring clear agreements and regular updates throughout the repair process.

For classic car enthusiasts, these cases serve as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in restoration work and the critical importance of safeguarding their investments through comprehensive insurance knowledge and proactive communication with service providers.

Source: Insurance News Magazine

Published:Tuesday, 31st Dec 2024
Author: Paige Estritori

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ICA Advocates for Legal Changes to Ease Small Business Insurance Burden

21 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently highlighted the pressing need for legal reforms to alleviate the escalating insurance premiums burdening small businesses across the nation. In a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee's inquiry into small business insurance, the ICA outlined several key areas requiring immediate attention. - read more

Legal Professionals Oppose Proposed Caps on Legal Fees in Liability Cases

21 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) has recently expressed strong opposition to the Insurance Council of Australia's (ICA) proposal to implement caps on legal fees in liability cases. This proposal is part of the ICA's broader agenda to address the rising insurance premiums affecting small businesses across Australia. - read more

ICA Advocates for Improved Risk Education to Support Small Businesses

21 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently emphasized the need for improved risk education programs tailored for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This initiative aims to equip business owners with the knowledge and tools necessary to manage risks effectively and navigate the complexities of the insurance market. - read more

APRA Data Shows Rising Insurance Premiums Through Intermediaries

13 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its latest statistics, indicating an increase in general insurance premiums placed through intermediaries. In the six months leading up to December 31, 2025, intermediated premiums totaled $22.97 billion, up from $21.59 billion in the previous half-year. - read more

Lawyers Challenge ICA's Proposal for Legal Fee Caps

13 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) has raised objections to the Insurance Council of Australia's (ICA) recent proposal to implement caps on legal fees in liability cases. The ICA argues that such measures are necessary to address rising public liability insurance premiums, attributing the increases to outdated civil liability laws and escalating legal costs. - read more

Click for more Insurance News