Registration and insurance

[pete376403]

WRT the ACC levy, a number of people (self included) are considering putting rego on hold. This raises the insurance question. I sent the following to State (who cover the mighty KLR) and their response follows:

(Me to them)
With regards to motor vehicle insurance - if a vehicle which is covered by a current State Insurance policy is involved in an accident and the registration of that motor vehichle is not current, would that be grounds for State to deny insurance cover? Could you please quote the relevant section of the policy in your reply.

(Them to me)
In regards to your online enquiry :

If a vehicle has an accident when its registration is not up to date we would still consider the claim on a without prejudice basis.
If the vehicle in question was not at fault for the accident then we would accept the claim (if everything else was OK) as your vehicle being on the road was not causative to the accident.
If you think your vehicle was at fault then it is possible your claim would be accepted but we would need to discuss the exact circumstances with you to determine this.

In any case the best option is to contact State on 0800 80 24 24 and speak to one of our claims consultants who can help with your query.

Policy Wordings to take note of :

This is under Exclusions that apply to the whole policy:

Unsafe or unroadworthy
You’re not covered if the vehicle is being used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition, and:
1. the condition of the vehicle contributed to loss or liability,
and
2. the driver should have been aware of that condition and that the condition could result in damage to the vehicle.

(Me again)
Note item 1. Could anyone argue a registration label (or lack of) could contribute to loss or liability?

[Swoop]

Ask them about having a current WOF but not a rego.
The WOF is the "safety check" of the bike.

[ukusa]

This is under Exclusions that apply to the whole policy:

Unsafe or unroadworthy
You’re not covered if the vehicle is being used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition, and:
1. the condition of the vehicle contributed to loss or liability,
and
2. the driver should have been aware of that condition and that the condition could result in damage to the vehicle.


I would assume they could argue that no WOF could be deemed as being "unroadworthy". It's a bit of a grey area because just because the WOF has expired doesn't mean it wouldn't pass with flying colours.
Seems the risks of no WOF or rego are too great as insurance co's are notorious for finding any reason whatsoever to not pay out.

[sleemanj]

If a vehicle has an accident when its registration is not up to date we would still consider the claim on a without prejudice basis.


This answers your question, they are saying "doesn't matter if it has registration or not, we still look at the claim". Also see the many previous threads here which quote the actual law. No registration does not mean instamatic loss of insurance, your lack of registration would have to have directly contributed to the loss/accident for the claim to be denied, which would be pretty damn difficult to show how not having a bit of paper contributed.



Unsafe or unroadworthy

Note item 1. Could anyone argue a registration label (or lack of) could contribute to loss or liability?

No. How exactly would you do that. "Your car was stolen because your bit of paper was expired". "You hit that car because your bit of paper was expired". "They ran up the back of you because your bit of paper was expired". No, no and a bit fat no.

If your warrant is expired AND some part of the vehicle which would have failed contributed to the claim (eg your brake lights didn't work and somebody ran up the back of you), THEN the insurers could rightly deny the claim.

BUT NOTE that having a warrant doesn't mean they would pay anyway, the insurers expect your vehicle to BE in warrantable condition, if you had a warrant but your brake lights didn't work the insurers may well use the "your vehicle was not maintained in a safe condition" out clause anyway.

[Ixion]

I am specifically advised by Swann Insurance that, whilst they do not in any way condone riding without registration, or any other unlawful activity, they are aware of the provisions of the Insurance Law reform Act 1977, and would not consider lack of registration to be material to a claim. Other insurers may vary. If yours have a problem, the solution seems obvious.

[Ferkletastic]

Ex insurance industry goon (claim recovery officer) here: In order to decline a claim the the reason for declinature must be directly contributory to the loss. For example if you are driving without a WOF with bald tyres and bung breaks and you're rear ended whilst stopped at a red light the claim can not be declined as the brakes etc weren't contributory to the loss.

Same thing applies here. However, it could be argued that if your vehicle isn't registered it shouldn't be on the road and hence wouldn't be in an accident. Fine line yo.

[vgcspares]

I'm in a similar position currently (with an insurance company) - IMHO no insurance company could decline a claim whether at fault or otherwise simply for having an expired rego

well in NZ anyway

[pete376403]

I was specifically referring to no registration. I understand that no WoF would be grounds for refusal.
You don't need registration to get a warrant (But you do need a warrant to get rego)

[kwaka_crasher]

I was specifically referring to no registration. I understand that no WoF would be grounds for refusal.
You don't need registration to get a warrant (But you do need a warrant to get rego)

You don't actually HAVE a WoF - all you really have is evidence that on the date of inspection, the inspector considered the vehicle roadworthy according to the regulations that determine roadworthynes, not that it was roadworthy at the time of the accident.

[Shadows]

Several months ago I asked an insurance assessor who works on behalf of an insurance company I happen to be a customer of, "what would happen if my motorcycle was not currently licensed in the event of an accident. Would it mean that the claim would be denied?".

His reply was that a motor vehicle license, or even a current warrant of fitness, means nothing in regards the acceptance or refusal of any claim. What does factor is the roadworthiness of the bike at the time of the accident. This is because the existance of a warrant of fitness sticker does not guarantee roadworthiness at any time other than at the point in time it was issued, and a registration sticker only means that you have paid taxes, so in no way would have any bearing on the circumstances of any accident.

In other words, whether or motorcycle is registered or warranted means very little in the event of a claim if you use an insurance company that is worth the premiums it charges.

[Morcs]

But of course if you are involved in an accident with No rego, even if you are lying in bits on the road or whatnot, theyll still be a copper standing there writing out a ticket for no rego!

[kwaka_crasher]

But of course if you are involved in an accident with No rego, even if you are lying in bits on the road or whatnot, theyll still be a copper standing there writing out a ticket for no rego!

Better $200 than $800...

[onearmedbandit]

But of course if you are involved in an accident with No rego, even if you are lying in bits on the road or whatnot, theyll still be a copper standing there writing out a ticket for no rego!

Not always. When I paralysed my arm in my big accident I had no current reg (warrant was current) and I didn't get a ticket. Police visited me in hospital, told me they knew it was lapsed but issued no ticket.

[Swoop]

But of course if you are involved in an accident with No rego, even if you are lying in bits on the road or whatnot, theyll still be a copper standing there writing out a ticket for no rego!
Quota? What quota...:sunny:

[Broomrider]

Certain exclusions forbidden
Where—
6
Reprinted as at
3 September 2007 Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 s 12

(a) By the provisions of a contract of insurance the circumstances
in which the insurer is bound to indemnify the
insured against loss are so defined as to exclude or limit
the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured on
the happening of certain events or on the existence of
certain circumstances; and
(b) In the view of the Court or arbitrator determining the
claim of the insured the liability of the insurer has been
so defined because the happening of such events or the
existence of such circumstances was in the view of the
insurer likely to increase the risk of such loss occurring,—
the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the
insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of
insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability
that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be
indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening
of such events or the existence of such circumstances.

They cannot refuse a claim on the grounds that you did not have your bike registered. They would have to repeal this act before this could change

[kwaka_crasher]

They would have to repeal this act before this could change

Just ammend.

[Broomrider]

Just ammend.

A bit late last night brain cells missing. You are right ammend the act...however the process can be lengthy...

I'm pinning my hopes on the cabnet overwhelmingly voting no to the ACC changes... hahaha yeah I know lala land is such a nice place to be.:rolleyes: