Irene lodged a claim for home contents including a laptop, jewellery, coins and pottery in March 2023, followed by a vehicle claim on July 4.
The insurance company paid out on each, then sought to recover the money when it realised the claims were probably fraudulent.
The $10,000 it wanted back was made up of $3717 in the home contents claim, $5100 in the vehicle payout, $1273 in costs incurred with a mechanic for the vehicle claim, and just under $200 in disposal costs for the vehicle, less $260 in premiums Irene paid on the vehicle policy after it was voided from the date of the alleged fraudulent contents claim.
The decision did not specify whether the claims were linked to alleged damage or theft.
A year after lodging the claims, Irene told the insurer her home contents claim was false.
She later raised a defence that the confession itself was false, which Thompson said was “unusual”.
In reaching her conclusion, she considered defences raised by Irene, including that she believed the interview by the insurer’s agent was conducted using a “discredited interview process”.
“However, she was not able to explain to me what was wrong with the process,” Thompson said.
She had listened to the recorded interview in which the interviewer introduced himself, said he was there to assist the insurance company with reopening the claims, said it involved collecting information, checked that Irene was comfortable with him being there and advised her that she was entitled to a support person.
Thompson said the interviewer asked questions in an appropriate manner and tone.
“He advised her that she had rights and responsibilities which include that she be honest with her insurance company, and so it was really important that her answers were accurate, complete and honest.”
Irene also believed the interview process “breached internal guidelines” but again, was light on detail as to which guideline had been breached, Thompson said.
“Nor is it the role of the tribunal to determine whether an organisation has adhered to its own guidelines.”
It was then that Irene suggested she confessed because she was “intimidated” by the investigator, who reminded her of her ex, but at no time during the interview did she express any discomfort or ask the investigator to leave, as would have been reasonable if she was uncomfortable, Thompson said.
She then said her false confession was to protect her daughter, but the explanation did not sit easily with the transcript of the interview, in which Irene said her daughter asked for the laptop and told Irene to “add it to the insurance claim”.
“While it is understandable that a parent may wish to protect a child, even when the child is an adult themselves, such protection is not outweighed by a responsibility to be honest,” Thompson said.
Irene did not say her confession was false until the claim was lodged more than a year later, in July 2025.
“If the confession had been false [Irene] could reasonably have been expected to advise [the insurer] long before, rather than waiting until this claim was heard.”
Thompson said Irene provided the insurer with false details and, under the terms of the contract, it was entitled to refuse the contents claim and recover the amounts paid out.
*A pseudonym has been used in line with Disputes Tribunal rules around name suppression.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.