Reconsidering Vehicle Data Interpretation in Insurance Claims
Introduction
How Insurance Companies and Industry Experts Fail to Consider Vehicle Data Holistically, Leading to Denied Claims
In this blog post, we shed light on an unfortunate incident where an insurance company and industry experts failed to interpret vehicle data accurately, resulting in the denial of a legitimate insurance claim. This case highlights the need for better awareness and understanding of vehicle thefts and telematics data within the insurance industry.
The Theft Incident
A modern motor vehicle was stolen from the owner's home address, where it had been parked after an evening outing with family members. Despite the vehicle being securely locked upon returning home, it was discovered missing the following morning. The owner promptly reported an insurance claim with a leading national insurer.
The Telematics Data Requirement
Upon reporting the claim, the insurance company requested the owner to obtain telematics data from the vehicle manufacturer. It is important to note that the vehicle did not have a third-party telematics device installed by the insurer. The vehicle itself had an embedded telematics control unit, enabling the manufacturer to monitor and store vehicle event activities. Surprisingly, the manufacturer readily provided the requested data, highlighting the ease of access compared to some criminal investigations we see where court orders or international requests are often required.
The Insurance Company's Analysis
Once the insurance company received the telematics data, they focused solely on the events recorded when the vehicle was parked at the owner's home address. Unfortunately, the insurer highlighted specific entries in the data, claiming that the vehicle was left unlocked at the time of the theft. As per their policy terms, they deemed the claim ineligible since thefts where the vehicle was left unlocked were not covered. The insurer's response, as quoted, was as follows:
When you reported the incident to us, you confirmed your vehicle was last used around 8pm. You parked the vehicle on your driveway overnight. The vehicle was last seen on the driveway at 8:30pm. The following morning, you discovered that your vehicle had unfortunately been stolen.
We received the following data from your vehicle which shows: 03/02/2023 20:09:21, XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows the vehicle was unlocked) 03/02/2023 20:09:23 XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows that a door was open) 03/02/2023 20:09:30 XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows that a door was closed) 03/02/2023 20:09:33 XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows a door was open) 03/02/2023 20:09:53 XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows that a door was closed). 03/02/2023 23:43:29 XXXXXXXXXXX (This shows that the engine was turned on)
We have referred the matter to industry experts who agree that the data shows that the vehicle was left unlocked when it was last used at 20:09:53. They have confirmed that the evidence shows that no further locking occurred before the vehicle was stolen.
I've checked your document of insurance and under the 'What is not covered under sections 1 and 2' section of your booklet, we explain: We will not pay for the following: loss or damage to your car by theft or attempted theft if your car has been left unlocked.
I'm afraid this means we are unable to deal with your claim because the data from your vehicle shows that it was left unlocked when it was last used and subsequently stolen.
A Holistic View of the Data
The owner, convinced that they had indeed locked the vehicle, felt angry and disheartened by the insurer's decision. It became evident that the insurance company had not considered the totality of events and known facts surrounding the incident. As Vehicle Systems Forensics consultants, we stepped in to investigate further.
Missing Events and Inconsistencies
Upon examining the telematics data and comparing it with the owner's account, several discrepancies became apparent. The recorded data indicated only two doors opening and closing (or one being opened, closed, reopened and closed), whereas the owner confirmed that four individuals had exited the vehicle. This inconsistency raises questions about the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Additionally, another event recorded later in the evening revealed the engine being switched on before the vehicle's doors were opened, further challenging the reliability of the telematics data.
Additionally, undisclosed theft methods and tactics, which were discussed privately but cannot be disclosed in this public blog post due to security and privacy concerns, further cast doubt on the reliability of the telematics data.
Attempt to Obtain Industry Experts' Report
In an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the insurer's reliance on the telematics data, we attempted to obtain the industry experts' report on their interpretation of the data. However, this report was not disclosed, leaving us with unanswered questions about the thoroughness of their analysis and any potential alternative explanations they might have considered.
Resolution and Implications
Fortunately, upon presenting the inconsistencies to the insurer, the claim was reconsidered and eventually accepted explaining they had never seen an engine on event prior to other events such as unlocking or doors opening. The policyholder received the deserved pay-out.
However, this case raises concerns about how many other legitimate claims might be denied due to a lack of understanding and misinterpretation of vehicle data.
Conclusion
The incident discussed in this blog post serves as a reminder of the importance of a comprehensive and holistic examination of vehicle data before making claim decisions. Insurance companies and industry experts must invest in better awareness, education, and training to avoid unjustly denying legitimate claims. It is crucial for them to develop a more nuanced understanding of vehicle thefts and effectively analyse telematics data to ensure fair and accurate claim assessments.