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
Source: Paige Estritori

Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ICA Advocates for Overhaul of Civil Liability Laws to Curb Rising Insurance Premiums

24 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently released a white paper highlighting the urgent need for reforms to state and territory civil liability laws, which have remained largely unchanged for nearly 25 years. These outdated laws are contributing to significant increases in public liability insurance premiums, affecting a wide range of businesses across the nation. - read more

Liberty Adds 'Safe Harbour' Insolvency Cover to D&O Policies

24 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

Liberty Specialty Markets has announced the addition of a company insolvency extension to its Australian directors' and officers' (D&O) liability policies. This innovative feature is designed to support companies and their directors by covering reasonable costs incurred when engaging approved advisers under the 'safe harbour' insolvency regime. - read more

APRA Reports Significant Underwriting Gains in Short-Tail Insurance

24 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released data indicating a substantial underwriting profit of $1.55 billion in short-tail insurance lines for the September quarter. This marks a notable improvement in the sector's performance, with householders insurance contributing $636 million to the overall profit. - read more

NSW Court Decision Escalates Liability Risks for Construction Industry

16 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent landmark ruling in New South Wales has significantly altered the liability landscape for the construction industry. The court's decision removes the ability for developers and builders to rely on proportionate liability defences under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (DBP Act), thereby increasing their exposure to claims related to building defects. - read more

Rising Public Liability Insurance Premiums Challenge Australian Businesses

16 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its latest National Claims and Policies Database (NCPD) statistics, revealing a substantial increase in public liability insurance premiums over recent years. According to the data, premiums have risen by 40% since 2015, a rate that surpasses general inflation and places additional financial strain on businesses across the country. - read more

Click for more Insurance News