Protecta Insurance - Claim problems

[Gremlin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any defect that would cause it to fail a WOF is grounds for the insurer to decline a claim EVEN IF IT PLAYED NO PART IN THE CRASH

Hmmm... interesting and annoying... In practise how does the argument stack up? Anyone know?

I run extra lights... technically it fails wof... wouldn't be amused if suddenly my claim was denied when it had nothing to do with the claim. Then again, I'm not with Protecta.

[MSTRS:Me]

Well - the insurer MAY relent and approve the claim IF you can prove that the defect did not contribute to, or cause, the crash. Bike doesn't have a rear reflector? That might be all it takes...But you'd still have a fight on your hands.

[Protecta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hmmm... interesting and annoying... In practise how does the argument stack up? Anyone know?

I run extra lights... technically it fails wof... wouldn't be amused if suddenly my claim was denied when it had nothing to do with the claim. Then again, I'm not with Protecta.

In response to Gremlin’s question, our opinion is that having the additional lights won’t cause a claim to be declined, if they had nothing to do with the cause of the crash.

Most insurance contracts include an exclusion for vehicles that are in unroadworthy condition, however the Insurance Law Reform Act (1977) would be on the side of the claimant (you!) in this case. The relevant wording is available here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM442558.html

So if the lights did not cause or contribute to the crash, then we feel that an insurer couldn’t decline the claim based on the lights making the bike unroadworthy.

[onearmedbandit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It does, insofaras the vehicle must be in WOF-able condition whether it has one or not. Any defect that would cause it to fail a WOF is grounds for the insurer to decline a claim EVEN IF IT PLAYED NO PART IN THE CRASH

Wrong sorry. Having been in the car industry for over 10yrs now I've seen numerous examples of insurance being paid out with cars that have expired WOF's, and have had an issue needed addressing. If it didn't contribute to the accident it's not relevant.

[MSTRS:Me]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wrong sorry. Having been in the car industry for over 10yrs now I've seen numerous examples of insurance being paid out with cars that have expired WOF's, and have had an issue needed addressing. If it didn't contribute to the accident it's not relevant.

I did say 'grounds'. I don't doubt that many claims are paid out, when a vehicle does not have a current WOF or when there is a defect present. But there'll also be many which are not.
Some may be approved no questions. Some may be approved after a fight. Some won't. Full stop.

There was a thread put up by someone not too long ago, where they were declined cover after a crash. Their WOF was quite new, yet their insurer insisted front tyre tread was not up to scratch and steadfastly refused to pay out. Despite independent expert opinion that the tyre was fine and that it played no part in the cause of the crash.

[onearmedbandit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I did say 'grounds'. I don't doubt that many claims are paid out, when a vehicle does not have a current WOF or when there is a defect present. But there'll also be many which are not.
Some may be approved no questions. Some may be approved after a fight. Some won't. Full stop.

There was a thread put up by someone not too long ago, where they were declined cover after a crash. Their WOF was quite new, yet their insurer insisted front tyre tread was not up to scratch and steadfastly refused to pay out. Despite independent expert opinion that the tyre was fine and that it played no part in the cause of the crash.

Ah yes but that particular company mentioned in that thread have a habit of making things hard. That's why we dropped them as a supplier of our extended mechanical insurance policies.

[Ender EnZed]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was a thread put up by someone not too long ago, where they were declined cover after a crash. Their WOF was quite new, yet their insurer insisted front tyre tread was not up to scratch and steadfastly refused to pay out. Despite independent expert opinion that the tyre was fine and that it played no part in the cause of the crash.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ah yes but that particular company mentioned in that thread have a habit of making things hard. That's why we dropped them as a supplier of our extended mechanical insurance policies.

I think the thread you're referring to is the one we're currently in.

[MSTRS:Me]

so it is
Well spotted

[motorbyclist]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have a few issues with how insurance works.

1. Its a two way street. If I buy a bike for $1000 and consider that particular bike the best bike in the world and ask an insurance company to insure it for $100,000 and they AGREE and set the preimums accordingly.. and I crash it.. They should pay $100,000 Thats what they agreed to. This whole market value thing is a crock of shit. When I brought the 9 I rung the insurance company and asked them how much they thought it was worth. They asked what I paid for it. I said that was immaterial. I wanted to know how much they thought it was worth. They said they are not in the business of valuing bikes, which is extremely odd to me being as they seem to be quite keen to work out the PAV (isnt that PRE accident valuation) after the bike has been crashed. Wouldnt this be easier to do when the bike is in the PRE stage?

When I bought my van I had the amusing problem where car insurers like state and AA refused to insure for anything less than twice the value of the vehicle! They said they work on an "agreed value", as opposed to "market value", but still refused to "under insure" my vehicle....

[cowboyz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

so it is
Well spotted

speechless!............

[GingerMidget]

Glad I'm not the only one who had issues. Called them recently to organise cover for the ute (it's in dads name, but he hasn't seen it in about 3 months) and they point blank refused to cover me as a named driver, because im female and under 25. Christ you'd think it was an amazingly rare super-car, not a manual commodore ute. Seriously, Its not even a v8. I do far worse things to my mazda than I do to the whale.

Private broker, 15 minutes, including the visit to value it himself, and its insured for agreed value with a minimal excess for my being under 25.

[AE4ME]

So where is the update from the OP with the result or is it still on-going?

Oh man