Ride-Share Driver Prevails in Insurance Dispute Over Vehicle Use

0

The driver, who had returned to ride-share work after a lengthy hiatus, was involved in an accident shortly after completing a passenger drop-off. When filing a claim, the driver faced refusal from Auto & General, which cited discrepancies in his policy. The policy depicted the vehicle as designated for “private and commuting” purposes, not for ride-share work.

Auto & General argued that had it known about the vehicle’s use for ride-sharing, the policy would not have been offered. They based their refusal on records showing the driver’s registration with Uber in 2019 and subsequent admissions to doing ride-share work intermittently. Nevertheless, AFCA concluded that such evidence did not substantiate active ride-share use during the time the policy was incepted.

AFCA's examination highlighted that no Uber activity occurred between March 2020 and August of the following year, aligning with the driver’s statement that he resumed service only in October 2024, coinciding with the day of the incident. Moreover, documentation indicated the vehicle was not actively used for Uber when the insurance policy took effect.

AFCA noted that the policy stipulated notifying changes to vehicle use promptly but deemed a few days reasonable for such disclosures. Therefore, the ruling favored the driver, requiring Auto & General to honour the claim, cover hire car expenses, and compensate the driver $1500 for stress due to the initial rejection.

Auto & General's defense cited that their policy excludes claims incurred while carrying passengers for hire. However, AFCA found this inapplicable since the accident occurred post-drop-off with no fare-paying customers present. Although instructed to process the claim, the insurer retains the right to terminate the policy post-claim acceptance.

This decision underscores the importance of clear communication between insurers and policyholders concerning any changes in vehicle usage, minimising potential disputes over claims.

Published:Wednesday, 4th Jun 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Regulatory Bodies Demand Clarity on Duration-Based Insurance Premiums 06 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Australia’s leading financial regulators, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), have raised concerns regarding the practice of duration-based pricing in life insurance products. They have emphasised the need for insurers to improve transparency, ensuring that consumers are fully informed about the long-term costs associated with initial premium discounts. - read more

Young Driver Left Uncovered Due to Policy Misstep 05 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A policyholder faces a denied claim after inadvertently excluding his newly licensed 21-year-old son from his car insurance policy, highlighting a common oversight in age-specific exclusions. Following a collision involving his son, who recently earned his licence, Hollard Insurance declined the claim based on policy terms that excluded drivers under 25, unless accompanied by a qualified adult. - read more

NSW Floods Highlight Critical Insurability Crisis 05 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Recently, New South Wales has been severely affected by major floods, with damages to around 10,000 homes and businesses. The Insurance Council of Australia has already received over 6,000 claims from the Mid North Coast and Hunter regions, while countless families face displacement as their homes become uninhabitable. - read more

Ride-Share Driver Prevails in Insurance Dispute Over Vehicle Use 04 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A ride-share driver recently won a significant claim dispute against an insurer that initially denied his claim following a traffic accident. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) sided with the driver, determining that Auto & General could not prove he misrepresented his vehicle use when purchasing his insurance policy. - read more