Court rules on insurance case: No valid tracker? No valid claim

Image source: rawpixel – 123RF.com

According to the insurer’s rejection letter, the claim was denied because the policyholder failed to prove that, at the time of the theft, the insured vehicle was fitted with an operational tracking device. The insurer further asserted that the policyholder had misrepresented the facts by stating that the vehicle had an operational tracker.

While previous rulings — particularly by the FAIS Ombudsman — have addressed failures to install tracking devices, these cases involved brokers neglecting to inform policyholders of such requirements.

This case is significant as it reinforces the necessity of adhering to policy terms and conditions. Moreover, it underscores the importance of policyholders responding honestly and promptly to insurers' requests during the claims investigation process.

At issue

The insurer first argued that the case involved material disputes of fact that were foreseeable and, therefore, could not be decided on the papers.

Additionally, the insurer contended that the policyholder had failed to comply with the policy requirement to install an operational tracking device. Lastly, the insurer disputed the value of the claim.

How the matter unfolded?

It was common cause between the parties that a tracking device was a compulsory requirement and that failure to install one would constitute a breach of contract. In particular, such failure would be material to the policyholder’s loss.

The records also indicated that the policyholder had been made aware of this requirement during underwriting and had explicitly informed the insurer that a tracking device had been installed.

To succeed in the claim, the policyholder needed to prove that the stolen vehicle had an operational tracking device on the date of loss—17 November 2023. However, when the insurer requested proof, the policyholder failed to provide it. Instead, the insurer undertook to obtain the records itself.

In his reply, the policyholder submitted an installation certificate for the tracker. However, its admissibility, accuracy, and link to the stolen vehicle were disputed. The policyholder did not address these concerns in reply.

Furthermore, the tracking records he provided did not correspond to 17 November 2023 and failed to specify the stolen vehicle’s registration details. As a result, the reliability of the records was placed under serious doubt.

Court decision

In light of the above, the court ruled against the policyholder, finding that he had failed to prove his case.

Specifically, the policyholder was unable to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his stolen vehicle had been fitted with an operational tracking device on 17 November 2023.

In fact, the records he provided were dated after the incident and did not include the vehicle’s registration details.

Conclusion

This case serves as a crucial reminder for policyholders to understand and comply with their policy requirements, as failure to do so may result in their claims being rejected.

Additionally, it reinforces the importance of ensuring that tracking devices in motor insurance policies are both installed and operational. This applies specifically to comprehensive motor insurance and policies that cover theft.