Centrelink recipient wins massive $250,000 payout after his insurer refused to pay up when his $65,000 BMW was wrecked

A Centrelink recipient has been awarded $250,000 after his insurer refused to pay him out when his $65,000 BMW was damaged while parked on a street. 

Insurer IAG had rejected the man’s claim after his BMW was written off following a collision, but the owner of the vehicle hit back and filed a case with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

IAG rejected the man’s case on the basis the collision scenario was ‘implausible’, the Daily Telegraph reported.

In the case filed with the AFCA, the man refuted every allegation made against him and won. 

The insurance giant said the man, who has not been identified, claimed the driver had ‘motive’ to make a false claim because he stood to benefit financially from the claim and Centrelink benefits appeared to be his main income.

Hitting back at the insurer, the man said he earned up to $40,000 a month trading on the stock market and with cryptocurrencies.

The man had purchased the BMW for $65,000 days before initially insuring the vehicle for $280,000 and subsequently lowering it to $250,000. 

AFCA’s adjudicator revealed phone recordings showed the man hadn’t known how much to insure the car for, with the insurer informing him the average value for his BMW was between $175,000 and $325,000.

A man in receipt of Centrelink benefits defeated fraud accusations to win a $250,000 claim on a written off BMW he bought for $65,000 (stock)

The collision took place seven months later after the man and his partner had left it parked on a street and taken an Uber to a restaurant. 

IAG said the man had ‘opportunity’ and questioned why he hadn’t taken the car to the restaurant or found a secure car park for the vehicle. 

The man said that he and his partner had decided they would have a drink at the restaurant.  

He also explained that because the street had no parking restrictions he saw no reason why he should waste time driving his car home before the meal. 

Although the adjudicator accepted these explanations, the insurer continued to lodge further allegations.

IAG said the man had not been frank as he failed to mention he was disqualified from driving, he had a previous claim and he didn’t call the police after discovering his car was damaged. 

The insurer also said the damage to the BMW was ‘malicious’. 

The BMW had been involved in a collision after the man had left it parked on a road while enjoying a drink with a meal (stock)

A report from the insurer’s crash investigator said the collision likely occurred due to a reversing truck doing a three-point turn on an unsuitable stretch of road. 

‘The report does not provide any specific information as to why the roadway is not conducive to a three-point turn being conducted,’ the adjudicator said.

The unnamed adjudicator ruled in the complainant’s favour and the man received $250,000 plus interest.

‘I accept there are inconsistencies, but I am not persuaded these alone, even when considered together, satisfy the burden of proof to establish the complainant has acted fraudulently or failed to be truthful and frank, to the degree where it would allow the insurer to decline the claim,’ the adjudicator said.

An IAG spokesman said an investigation can be required for certain claims due to the cost and importance of identifying possible fraudulent claims. 

But the financial settlement was immediately awarded to the man in question as soon as AFCA stated the decision.