Thoughts?

[cowboyz]

lets say you hire a gardener/lawnmower for $100/month. You agree that the laws be mowed every 2 weeks and general upkeep of the gardens be maintained. You go for several montsh with everything working just fine. The the gardener comes to you and says he doesnt want to mow the lawns anymore. Just upkeept the gardens. You say that you would really prefer the whole job done. He agrees.
Then he just stops mowing the lawns.. and still charges you $100/month.

What do you do? Is this fair?


Of course.. This is bike related.. There is no gardener but thats pretty much the story and i want to get peoples feeling around this whole idea before releasing the stigma which this is really about....

[slofox]

The initial contract/agreement is no longer being honoured. So fire him...

[Tank]

Simple maths.

He does less work = you get less service / product = he gets less money.

Fire his ass.

[Maha]

I agree with slofox, he is no longer needed because he is not doing the job required.

He wants to do less for the agreed amount?
Someones on the make and it aint the payer.

[cowboyz]

but what if you fire him and then you have to cover the insurance.. I mean the gardens yourself? And its 'common practice' for gardeners to make the rules up as they go along.......

[Maha]

Heaps of other insur.....I mean gardners around, let your fingers do the walking.

[slofox]

but what if you fire him and then you have to cover the insurance.. I mean the gardens yourself? And its 'common practice' for gardeners to make the rules up as they go along.......

Get a new "gardener". My gf had exactly this situation - really with gardeners. Kicked the old one's arse out the door and got a newbie. Much better.

[Maha]

Get a new "gardener". My gf had exactly this situation - really with gardeners. Kicked the old one's arse out the door and got a newbie. Much better.

Much better and much younger??.....:shifty:

[slofox]

Much better and much younger??.....:shifty:

More than bloody likely!!!

[Genie]

lets say you hire a gardener/lawnmower for $100/month. You agree that the laws be mowed every 2 weeks and general upkeep of the gardens be maintained. You go for several montsh with everything working just fine. The the gardener comes to you and says he doesnt want to mow the lawns anymore. Just upkeept the gardens. You say that you would really prefer the whole job done. He agrees.
Then he just stops mowing the lawns.. and still charges you $100/month.

What do you do? Is this fair?


Of course.. This is bike related.. There is no gardener but thats pretty much the story and i want to get peoples feeling around this whole idea before releasing the stigma which this is really about....

oh mr cyptic....you always keep the reader guessing as to what you're really on about.

right, gardener would get half the wages as he's doing half the work.....but, as he is so unreliable - get a new one! It's your money you choose which gardener will provide you with the best service. It's all about service.

[cowboyz]

there is no way i would commit public suicide by downing the godly insurance companies who many hold in such high reguard. Esp after my comments on the changing excess's for trackdays but in a nutshell.. My insurance has been dropped to 3rd party by the insurance company because I lost my licence. My broker doesnt know anything about it. If I hadnt been talking to my insurance co directly I wouldnt have known about it either. They suggested it when I lost my licence but I said no.. I want full cover beacuse what if someone else takes my bike out? My monthly payments havent changed. So paying for full cover and getting 3rd party instead.

Wrong? No.. Insurance companies can do what they want


(I never said anything against the insurance companies.. any reference to any insurance company or even the thought of reference to an insurance company is purely coincidental and we are talking about garderners)

[Maha]

Harden up, no legal action can be taken, its the fucken internet, we dont even know who you are Lan.....opps.

[Cayman911]

you say thank you, i wont be requiring your services after this. and find yourself a new gardener.

[Bald Eagle]

there is no way i would commit public suicide by downing the godly insurance companies who many hold in such high reguard. Esp after my comments on the changing excess's for trackdays but in a nutshell.. My insurance has been dropped to 3rd party by the insurance company because I lost my licence. My broker doesnt know anything about it. If I hadnt been talking to my insurance co directly I wouldnt have known about it either. They suggested it when I lost my licence but I said no.. I want full cover beacuse what if someone else takes my bike out? My monthly payments havent changed. So paying for full cover and getting 3rd party instead.

Wrong? No.. Insurance companies can do what they want


(I never said anything against the insurance companies.. any reference to any insurance company or even the thought of reference to an insurance company is purely coincidental and we are talking about garderners)
simply kick the gardener in touch and get a new gardener.

[Genie]

that just seems so wrong....i presume you have now talked to them directly as I'm sure they would not want to lose your custom but as you are not using the shovel/rake/wheelbarrow then surely the quality of service should remain the same. You are paying for this service so they should continue to provide said saervice. How did the provider come to know of your misfortune? Am interested to hear how this unfolds as I'm sure many others have been or could be in this situation in the future.....

[cowboyz]

I TOLD THEM! HAHAHHAHAHHAHAH.. Talk about screwing yourself over... Doesnt matter anyhow.. cause from my point of view... if I crash the bike while riding it without a licence and claim then claim would be refused under full cover because it is a condition of that cover that I have a licence and I am not meeting those conditions... Simple huh? No.. lets change the whole policy to 3rd party and now I got to change it back when I get my licence back.

[Genie]

does this also affect your car insurance? wow...and how did they find out? Do the courts send to info on to all gardeners???

[HenryDorsetCase]

there is no way i would commit public suicide by downing the godly insurance companies who many hold in such high reguard. Esp after my comments on the changing excess's for trackdays but in a nutshell.. My insurance has been dropped to 3rd party by the insurance company because I lost my licence. My broker doesnt know anything about it. If I hadnt been talking to my insurance co directly I wouldnt have known about it either. They suggested it when I lost my licence but I said no.. I want full cover beacuse what if someone else takes my bike out? My monthly payments havent changed. So paying for full cover and getting 3rd party instead.

Wrong? No.. Insurance companies can do what they want


(I never said anything against the insurance companies.. any reference to any insurance company or even the thought of reference to an insurance company is purely coincidental and we are talking about garderners)

if you think you're getting reamed now, wait till its time to formally renew the "gardener"s contract. since your risk profile has increased due to your loss of licence in the preceding period of contract, your likelihood of claim has increased, so the premium will go through the roof.

What the gardener wants is for you to tell them to GF, and you become someone else's problem. in the meanwhile they've had your money. For a long time, I only ever had third party on my bikes anyway. though the trumpy is fully covered. In case of "gardening incidents"

[HenryDorsetCase]

I TOLD THEM! HAHAHHAHAHHAHAH.. Talk about screwing yourself over... Doesnt matter anyhow.. cause from my point of view... if I crash the bike while riding it without a licence and claim then claim would be refused under full cover because it is a condition of that cover that I have a licence and I am not meeting those conditions... Simple huh? No.. lets change the whole policy to 3rd party and now I got to change it back when I get my licence back.

that does seem strange, but whatever: which firm is it? Mr Green, Jims, Hire a Hubby?

[cowboyz]

if you think you're getting reamed now, wait till its time to formally renew the "gardener"s contract. since your risk profile has increased due to your loss of licence in the preceding period of contract, your likelihood of claim has increased, so the premium will go through the roof.
yes.. that has crossed my mind. Even though I have not cost them anything! Same when they kept asking Qs on my demerit points every year. Like what imprtance does that have over my claims? Surely the fact that I have had zero at fault claims in 20 years would be more important.
What the gardener wants is for you to tell them to GF, and you become someone else's problem. in the meanwhile they've had your money. For a long time, I only ever had third party on my bikes anyway. though the trumpy is fully covered. In case of "gardening incidents"

Serioulsy thinking about scrapping the whole idea really. gardeners piss me off.

[cowboyz]

does this also affect your car insurance? wow...and how did they find out? Do the courts send to info on to all gardeners???

car insurance dont care. They will deal with any claims on a case by case basis as they come to hand.

[zahria]

My understanding is... once your license has been lost forwhatever reason, it is hard to get "gardeners" to work for you.
The goal posts have shifted now, and you will notice the difference.

[Genie]

Yes these damn gardeners are getting rather pedantic. Had some theivery in the garden recently and they have since put up their outlay charge as I did not protect my property to their satisfaction. It's a tight market out there, I'd say if you find a decent gardener they might need some muffins for morning tea.

[R-Soul]

Yeeeaaah your analogy was not the FULL truth at the start. What you neglected to mention is that since you started teh contract with eth gardener, you have spread big pebbles around your garden, whih cmeans teh agrdenr has a higher chance of fucking his equipment up on your lawn, with potential big payouts. And he will probably tell the other gardeners about it. The thing si that you need to look at eth inital contract. Was it only covering you and you alone on the bike, or just the bike? i.e. would they have paid out if somebody else crashed it?

If it was the bike alone, they probably are trying to surreptitiously cancel the current contract because they would have to keep it going with the same premiums but increased risk. If they suggest the 3rd party only contract and you agree, then by tacit consent the contract is ended. Then when you get your license again, they can make you start a new contract with increased premiums. How much of your contract was left?

They would not pay out if you crashed it without a license anyway, even if the contract was still in force, since that is probably one of the explicit contactual terms - fit for riding.

[Genie]

gald i oot am a sokcing tpyer so nkwo whatt uyo meatn

[cowboyz]

Yeeeaaah your analogy was not the FULL truth at the start. What you neglected to mention is that since you started teh contract with eth gardener, you have spread big pebbles around your garden, whih cmeans teh agrdenr has a higher chance of fucking his equipment up on your lawn, with potential big payouts. And he will probably tell the other gardeners about it. The thing si that you need to look at eth inital contract. Was it only covering you and you alone on the bike, or just the bike? i.e. would they have paid out if somebody else crashed it?

If it was the bike alone, they probably are trying to surreptitiously cancel the current contract because they would have to keep it going with the same premiums but increased risk. If they suggest the 3rd party only contract and you agree, then by tacit consent the contract is ended. Then when you get your license again, they can make you start a new contract with increased premiums. How much of your contract was left?

They would not pay out if you crashed it without a license anyway, even if the contract was still in force, since that is probably one of the explicit contactual terms - fit for riding.

first and formost..... explain to me how me losing my licence is an increased risk to them?

[The Pastor]

well it proves that you are a total badass

[nodrog]

mow your own lawns you lazy cunt

[Owl]

Yep, find a new gardner! I just happen to live with a "gardening broker" if that's any help.:whistle:

Oh and apparently the gardner also has to give you 14 days notice in writing for any change to the contract.

[Mully]

Get a new gardener for 3rd party, fire and theft only (unless you owe finance on your, umm, garden)

Chuck the rest of the gardening money (for the lawns) into another account in case the worst happens.

Sort of "self-gardening" - at least self-gardening your own loss (to the lawn). Probably cheaper to you in the long run anyway.

[Mully]

Oh, and "Slow down, Rossi"

(Beat you, Kiwifruit)

[phantom]

As a gardener who won't mow lawns I was getting a bit worried there for a while

[R-Soul]

gald i oot am a sokcing tpyer so nkwo whatt uyo meatn
There are some days when I can't put a finger right...
AAAAARRGGGHH!!

[R-Soul]

first and formost..... explain to me how me losing my licence is an increased risk to them?

Well they work on the basis of risk. People dont lose license unless there is a good reason. Without knowing your specific circumstances, It would be fair to say that those people that lose their license are doing so because they have done silly things like speeding a lot or drinking a lot or whatever caused them to lose their license in the first place.

It is generally fair to say that people who have done enough silly things to lose their license generally have a greater risk of crashing. And therefore present a greater chance of them having to pay out than other people who have a clean record.

Remember that they don't go and investigate every customer's personal circumstances or reasons for losing their license. They have too many customers for that, and an investigation would take a workers time (and salary). They just create rules that account for customers in general, and some can just fall through the administrative cracks. So even if you did not lose your license for doing anything risky, you get swept up in their general rules.

I am not taking their sides here- just explaining their reasoning from a "big corporate" point of view.

[cowboyz]

Well they work on the basis of risk. People dont lose license unless there is a good reason. Without knowing your specific circumstances, It would be fair to say that those people that lose their license are doing so because they have done silly things like speeding a lot or drinking a lot or whatever caused them to lose their license in the first place.

It is generally fair to say that people who have done enough silly things to lose their license generally have a greater risk of crashing. And therefore present a greater chance of them having to pay out than other people who have a clean record.

Remember that they don't go and investigate every customer's personal circumstances or reasons for losing their license. They have too many customers for that, and an investigation would take a workers time (and salary). They just create rules that account for customers in general, and some can just fall through the administrative cracks. So even if you did not lose your license for doing anything risky, you get swept up in their general rules.

I am not taking their sides here- just explaining their reasoning from a "big corporate" point of view.

I understand where your coming from and think its just plain wrong. Not wrong as 'its not like that' but wrong as in 'it shouldnt be like that'

Yes I ride faster than some. Yes I get caught ALOT (its damn shocking really.... but thats another story). So on one side of the equation... I get speeding tickets all the time.. on the other.. I have never had an at-fault claim on insurance. Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

[sinfull]

You insure that bike ?

[cowboyz]

well.. actually.. Its more of a plan.. I insure this bike for one reason only.. I dont think im gonna crash it but when I buy my zx10 soon I want insurance history so I can insure that without paying a fortune for it. unfortunately my plan is not working out being as exceeding 100km/hr makes me a high risk.

[Spyke]

Just put aside the money you would spend on full insurance each year untill you think its enough that it can pay off most of the damages that could happen, but if you dont crash you have a hefty dollop of cash lying around to put toward a new bike.

[cowboyz]

its about building an insurance profile.. soemthing I not actually doing that well.. mostly cause I frikken hate insurance companies! I have been a contract worker most of my adult life.. I know how contracts work.. Insurance companies seem to be able to chop and change their mind at will - and whats worse... is people accept it as normal.

[CookMySock]

Punch him in the head and tell him not to do that again. He'll get the message.

Steve

[WRT]

Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

Techincally, no - I'm playing devil's advocate here but min risk is someone without an at fault claim and without loss of licence. Some might view you instead as an accident waiting to happen, which certainly isn't min risk. Obviously the law thinks this is the case (hence why they think you should no longer be allowed to ride on the roads), so surely a prudent insurer would/should do the same?

However, an insurer that specialise in bike insurance will normally look upon loss of licence from speeding as part of being a motorcycle rider. They'll still want to know the circumstances of how you lost it and may impose a higher premium as a result, but they shouldn't change your cover type.

IMO reducing your cover to 3rd party is a bit of a stupid thing to do anyway as you can't claim for 3rd party damage if you aren't legally allowed to ride the bike. If they were going to reduce the cover, it should have been to Fire and Theft only (or Fire, Theft and Transit if they offer it), as these are the only things you can claim for - and they should definitely have reduced the premium as well.

It's also pretty slack that they never notified your broker.

[ukusa]

have you tried Roundup? You won't need a gardener then!

[Coldrider]

have you tried Roundup? You won't need a gardener then!Butlers Glyphosate 360 Weedkiller is cheaper now the patent has run out.

[Edbear]

I tend to be the loyal type and reluctant to change gardners. We'd had one gardner forever and had good service but eventually I had to face the fact that 'he' had priced 'himself' off the market and took my whole house, toys and garden and put them in the care of another gardener.

I hope the new gardner will be as good as the last one, and to date they have been very good.

[R-Soul]

I understand where your coming from and think its just plain wrong. Not wrong as 'its not like that' but wrong as in 'it shouldnt be like that'

Yes I ride faster than some. Yes I get caught ALOT (its damn shocking really.... but thats another story). So on one side of the equation... I get speeding tickets all the time.. on the other.. I have never had an at-fault claim on insurance. Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

Risk is assessed on your history of accidents as awell as your potential for future accidents.

What is most concerning to me is that YOU are not gettng the hint (if you still dont understand, let me spell it out for you: If you ride fast, you are more likely to crash - and when you do, it will be very messy and expensive for both you and insurance company).

Rather focus on and enjoy the acceleration from 0 to speed limit (its legal to accelerate hard), but back off after that.

Also, you can argue that you are actually not that bad - like getting caught doing 111km/hr in a 100km/hr zone. To me this is even dumber - you get no speed thrill, you dont get there any faster (ok a couple of seconds) but you do get to waste all the spare cash that you have paying The Man so he can hand your hard earned moola to grafters on the dole.

With the cash you save, you can do track days for speed thrills... hell, it sounds like you could have done all four courses at the superbike school already!

[red mermaid]

Thats like the excuse you get from old people.

They tootle down the road causing all kinds of chaos and mayhem, then when it is suggested to them that their driving is no longer of an acceptable standard they tell you how they have being driving for 50 years and never had an accident and are a safe driver.



I understand where your coming from and think its just plain wrong. Not wrong as 'its not like that' but wrong as in 'it shouldnt be like that'

Yes I ride faster than some. Yes I get caught ALOT (its damn shocking really.... but thats another story). So on one side of the equation... I get speeding tickets all the time.. on the other.. I have never had an at-fault claim on insurance. Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

[R-Soul]

However, an insurer that specialise in bike insurance will normally look upon loss of licence from speeding as part of being a motorcycle rider. They'll still want to know the circumstances of how you lost it and may impose a higher premium as a result, but they shouldn't change your cover type.

IMO reducing your cover to 3rd party is a bit of a stupid thing to do anyway as you can't claim for 3rd party damage if you aren't legally allowed to ride the bike. If they were going to reduce the cover, it should have been to Fire and Theft only (or Fire, Theft and Transit if they offer it), as these are the only things you can claim for - and they should definitely have reduced the premium as well.

It's also pretty slack that they never notified your broker.

Thereisn't an insurer on the planet that would insure him on the road without a license. Because any accident he has is his fault because he is on the road illegally.

There was no reason to stop his bike insurance at all - if its for his bike and not for him. Its not to say that other people wont ride his bike legally. And if he crashed it without a licence they would simply not pay out as he was unlawful at the time.

PS hear it again cowboyz? "Accident waiting to happen". Not my words...
Also if you want to build a better insurance profile, do the advanced courses and track daysa nd superbike school - that will help reduce premiums (but dont quote me on it), and get some speed out of your system. The fact is that the road is just not a place for speed. As a dad, I always ride with the idea that a kid could jump out at any time, or a dog (even faster and more difficult to spot). The road is just too unpredictable for speed.

[Owl]

Because any accident he has is his fault because he is on the road illegally.

Not true!

By that logic, any accident you're involved in would be your fault if you had no WOF or vehicle licence.

[cowboyz]

Thereisn't an insurer on the planet that would insure him on the road without a license. Because any accident he has is his fault because he is on the road illegally.

There was no reason to stop his bike insurance at all - if its for his bike and not for him. Its not to say that other people wont ride his bike legally. And if he crashed it without a licence they would simply not pay out as he was unlawful at the time.

PS hear it again cowboyz? "Accident waiting to happen". Not my words...
Also if you want to build a better insurance profile, do the advanced courses and track daysa nd superbike school - that will help reduce premiums (but dont quote me on it), and get some speed out of your system. The fact is that the road is just not a place for speed. As a dad, I always ride with the idea that a kid could jump out at any time, or a dog (even faster and more difficult to spot). The road is just too unpredictable for speed.

perception is a funny thing huh? maybe the way Im percieving the way you percieve me is more interesting.........

firstly.. background.

I dont think I ride fast. Not all the time anyhow.. But really really unlucky in some repects. I got pulled over 5 times in a month to lose my licence. One of those way my fault absoutley. 2 of them I had a cop folllowing me for at least 10k (who I knew was there) and my GPS logger said I never exceeded 107km/hr however the cop managed to get me at 111. I disputed it and it got refused.
I have been riding for 20 years. I have completed every defensiive driving course availiable in NZ. I ride every single day. I have taught an untold ammount of people (including my wife) how to ride confidently and safely. Yes I do exceed the speed limit.. Some might even say I ride very fast but oops moments are very rare when I am on the bike. I dont exceed my limits on the road. I attend trackdays and training days... the ones I can get to.. You certainly dont want to get me started on the whole... attend trackdays and learn to ride on the track cause it will make you a better road rider. I have yet to see a road with the width of a track and with the same camber of a purpose built racetrack. I am also a father of 3 and teach my kids to stay the fuck off the road. I am not gods gift to riding.. Even on the track there are plenty of guys who can easily leave me in their wake. But Im not a showpony either. Im happy with the skills I have built up over the years and certainly do not think I am an accident waiting to happen. No matter what Mr policeman would have you believe.

[cowboyz]

Thats like the excuse you get from old people.

They tootle down the road causing all kinds of chaos and mayhem, then when it is suggested to them that their driving is no longer of an acceptable standard they tell you how they have being driving for 50 years and never had an accident and are a safe driver.

meh

Im actually a bit offended that I be compared to old people. I dont cause chaos or mayhem. Im actually pretty considerate all things considered.

[Meanie]

meh

Im actually a bit offended that I be compared to old people. I dont cause chaos or mayhem. Im actually pretty considerate all things considered.

But you are old

[sinfull]

Might be time to replace that "i wont get lost contraption" you have mounted on your bike for a "i wont get caught contraption" !

[cowboyz]

I tried a wont get caught contraption and still got booked! 118k just south of Kaitaia. I mean! there is 2 people who live up there and only one of them has a road legal car and he is a cop!

[Mully]

Not true!

By that logic, any accident you're involved in would be your fault if you had no WOF or vehicle licence.

I don't think it's so much "fault" as "Insurance company will tell you to go jump"

My understand (and I'm only a Bush Lawyer) is that an insurance company can only refuse to pay out if the issue is (or could be) material to the event which caused the claim.

I.E. They can refuse to pay out if you have no WOF (as the vehicle might be faulty), but they can't refuse to pay out if you have no vehicle licence.

In this case, if the OP had an accident with a suspended driving licence, I would suspect it would be unlikely that the insurance would pay out as he would be operating the vehicle illegally.

[cowboyz]

back to the bush then cause this has been tried a heap of times!

[Mully]

back to the bush then cause this has been tried a heap of times!

D'oh!

I'd better go slap my insurance guy in the face then. Actually, I'm sure he said it was in the Legislation.

Lying sonofabitch

[dogsnbikes]

But you are old

Once he relise's that things will make sense :rofl:



PS hear it again cowboyz? "Accident waiting to happen". Not my words...


I wouldn't say Cowboyz is a accident waiting too happen but can understand that is the view people and insurer's have Its all a numbers game,their wouldn't be a single motorcyclist here that hasn't exceeded the speed limit,the difference is some get caught other's don't,and it doesn't help that your radar detector goes off after the cop car has been parked behind you for 5 or so minutes after he has pulled you up....but thats another story:shutup:

And he is certainly not Fast,not in the way some think but he is a smooth rider..........

I'm not saying its OK too speed,Hell even I have had tickets .... generally its look at a cat and mouse game between motorcyclist and cop's,in this instant cowboyz has been the mouse more often than the cat

Really mate Once your legel again Caution is your best freind:yes:

[Mully]

D'oh!

I'd better go slap my insurance guy in the face then. Actually, I'm sure he said it was in the Legislation.

Lying sonofabitch

Lucky I checked before I went and slapped him

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Section 11


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.


But then, that's no vehicle licence, not a suspended driving licence, which I suspect the insurance company will claim is material to the claim - i.e. you lost your licence because you were a danger (not my opinion, but that's what they'll reason) and that could have contributed to any claim.

Just out of curiousity, what amount is your bike insured for?

[cowboyz]

and it doesn't help that your radar detector goes off after the cop car has been parked behind you for 5 or so minutes after he has pulled you up....but thats another story:shutup:


hmmmmmmmmmmm........... or when your following a bike doing 150k/hr to have him slow down and pass him doing 115 and have a cop sitting round the next corner...........
And he is certainly not Fast, ...

thanks! and you just say that cause your comparing me to the honda!


Really mate Once your legel again Caution is your best freind:yes:

or I could just get a zx10... yes.. that should solve everything.................

[huff3r]

I dont think I ride fast. Not all the time anyhow.. But really really unlucky in some repects. I got pulled over 5 times in a month to lose my licence. One of those way my fault absoutley. 2 of them I had a cop folllowing me for at least 10k (who I knew was there) and my GPS logger said I never exceeded 107km/hr however the cop managed to get me at 111. I disputed it and it got refused..

Hang on, so you knew you were being followed by a cop and didnt exceed 107? They can still do you for that if they want to. Surely if you KNOW you're being followed then you wouldnt exceed 100? I stick to 99.5 whenever theres a cop around!

But I do agree that you shouldnt be paying a full-insurance price for third party cover. Thats just ridiculous.

[ynot slow]

What would happen if said lawnmower was owned by mr and mrs,and both able to use it.
Third party is ok if it includes theft and fire(and you want that),and what is to say as an example,heaps of guys here have partners who have full licenses,and therefore able to ride any bike legally(if it is legal for road),to find the cover is 3rd party for yourself would also mean the partner is disadvantaged as well(assuming she is on ownership/insurance documents)should they crash whilst you're disqualed.

And there are heaps on here in the country/area who have dropped bikes twice or more in 12-24 months or so,and a few tickets(maybe not enough to be walking) and have no probs getting insured.

[R-Soul]

Not true!

By that logic, any accident you're involved in would be your fault if you had no WOF or vehicle licence.

right!!! Now youre getting it!! and if you are ever in an accident with those circumstances, you will probably not be paid out by insurers, and the cops would have a case against you.

[Owl]

Oh right through the heart.

:thud:

[R-Soul]

but they can't refuse to pay out if you have no vehicle licence.



I am not a NZ lawyer either (althhough I am a lawyer), but it makes logical sense to me that if the state has deemed you not fit to ride on the road, then that is pretty bloody material to their insurance contract, and they would definitely have a reason not to pay out.

Cowboyz I apologise if it sounded like I was patronising you like you were a kid. I had no idea of your background - I only had the info that you gave me to go on. But even you can see how this looks. In fact how it IS. You may think getting stoppd 5 times a month is unlucky - but I dont. It is an absolute refusal by you to know when to give it a rest. Like the cop following you scenario. Why even push that scenario at all ? Especially if you had already got one that month? I dont know about you, but my missus regards every ticket I get as one less opportunity to take her to dinner and lets me know how she feels about it.

And for what - to get there 2 and a half minutes earlier? Its just dimb getting tickets for juuusssssst over the limit. A complete waste.

So to summarise:

Tickets for far over speed limit- accident waiting to happen
Tickets for just over speed limit - dimb, slow down you fool.

[R-Soul]

I am not a NZ lawyer either (althhough I am a lawyer), but it makes logical sense to me that if the state has deemed you not fit to ride on the road, then that is pretty bloody material to their insurance contract, and they would definitely have a reason not to pay out.

Cowboyz I apologise if it sounded like I was patronising you like you were a kid. I had no idea of your background - I only had the info that you gave me to go on. But even you can see how this looks. In fact how it IS. You may think getting stoppd 5 times a month is unlucky - but I dont. It is an absolute refusal by you to know when to give it a rest. Like the cop following you scenario. Why even push that scenario at all ? Especially if you had already got one that month? I dont know about you, but my missus regards every ticket I get as one less opportunity to take her to dinner and lets me know how she feels about it.

And for what - to get there 2 and a half minutes earlier? Its just dimb getting ticlets for juuusssssst over the limit. A complete waste.

Dimb and dumb..

[R-Soul]

Lucky I checked before I went and slapped him

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Section 11


But then, that's no vehicle licence, not a suspended driving licence, which I suspect the insurance company will claim is material to the claim - i.e. you lost your licence because you were a danger (not my opinion, but that's what they'll reason) and that could have contributed to any claim.

Just out of curiousity, what amount is your bike insured for?

There is also a mater of public policy- it would not be in the "public interest" for insurers to be held to a contract where they can be indemnifying someone while breaking the law. (i.e. assisting someone to break the law).

FYI when it comes to insurance, "failure to disclose material circumstances" and illegality is s deal killer every time.

They work out risk rates and hence premiums based on the risk profile. On some the win, and on some customers they lose. They profit in the long term, over a large number of insured people. The logic is this: If you dont tell them your true risk profile, they cant make a living out of it, and nobody gets insurance.

[kwaka_crasher]

Serioulsy thinking about scrapping the whole idea really. gardeners piss me off.

That's a good move. I've never paid for 'gardening' and I'm not fucking starting now.


mow your own lawns you lazy cunt

No time. Must go to gym and pay to exercise!


I am not a NZ lawyer either (althhough I am a lawyer), but it makes logical sense to me that if the state has deemed you not fit to ride on the road, then that is pretty bloody material to their insurance contract, and they would definitely have a reason not to pay out.

He's not asking them to insure his bike for unlicensed or suspended license riders and that was never a condition of the original contract either. He's merely asking them to supply the cover they offered and he agreed to pay for.

[R-Soul]

That's a good move. I've never paid for 'gardening' and I'm not fucking starting now.



No time. Must go to gym and pay to exercise!



He's not asking them to insure his bike for unlicensed or suspended license riders and that was never a condition of the original contract either. He's merely asking them to supply the cover they offered and he agreed to pay for.
If you look closely I was commenting on a earlier comment from Mully.

I already commented on cowboyz question.

[Owl]

I am not a NZ lawyer either (althhough I am a lawyer)


brake the law

Exactly what type of lawyer?:confused:

[Coldrider]

He's not asking them to insure his bike for unlicensed or suspended license riders and that was never a condition of the original contract either. He's merely asking them to supply the cover they offered and he agreed to pay for. at what risk level?

[Mully]

I am not a NZ lawyer either (althhough I am a lawyer), but it makes logical sense to me that if the state has deemed you not fit to ride on the road, then that is pretty bloody material to their insurance contract, and they would definitely have a reason not to pay out.

Sorry mate, by "vehicle licence" I meant Registration - not licence to drive. No licence to drive would be a perfectly valid reason not to pay out on a claim

The legislation I was looking at said (I think) the act or omission (in this case, omitting to have a current rego) had to be material to the loss suffered, which no vehicle rego wouldn't be.

[cowboyz]

I never suggested that if I go crash my bike while riding without a licence that they should pay for the accident. Full comprehensive cover is actually mis-named really. All insurance is limited liability and I understand that there are conditions to be met.

What I am objecting to is *I* am not insured. My *bike* is. The fact that I dont have a licence is so not the point! The bike should remain fully insured.

I know it is common for parents to buy thier kids cars. How do you get on with insurance in this instance? You buy a car and insure it for under 25s to drive it and then lose your licence and your kid is not insured to drive anymore because you own the vehicle? Is this fair?

[Mikkel]

So, you got your license back? If you ride outside your license conditions or without a current license you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd even do 3rd party for you.

On the other hand, if you got your license back there's no way they can legally drop you down to 3rd party cover. You have signed a contract for comprehensive cover and as long as that contract is in effect you will be having comprehensive cover. They can cancel that contract with 30 days notice (at least it's 30 day with my insurance) and will then have to refund the money that is outstanding on your premium payment. They can not change the wording of your insurance policy mid-term.

[cowboyz]

Again!

FFS!!

No I havent got my licence back.. that is so not the point.

the BIKE should still be covered for full insurance (what I am paying for) reguardless. What has me having a licence got to do with the price of fish?

im not asking anyone to payout on a claim for me riding without a licence. I havent even made a claim!

[Owl]

Again!

FFS!!

No I havent got my licence back.. that is so not the point.

:corn:


They can not change the wording of your insurance policy mid-term.

You sure about that Mikkel???

[ynot slow]

The crux is the bike is insured for the rider,you can be sole rider or any rider so how can they change that from full to 3rd party.My policy is for me as named rider but can be changed to any "licensed" person,they were very quick to say the rider must have the relevant license for the bike,i.e not learner,which I understood.

Same as my kids cars are insured via their mum,but the policy states the kids drive it 75%(while they were at home)and to 90%while at uni,wonder what would happen should their mum lose her license in the scenario as this thread.

What would happen if you had 3rd party cover and this scenario happened,tell you no insurance.

When I was disqualified my policy never changed,and I had a work license,but dad used my car at the time.

[kwaka_crasher]

If you look closely I was commenting on a earlier comment from Mully.

I already commented on cowboyz question.

Ah yes. Sorry - I got a little confused as to whom was replying to whom during the multi-quote process and considered your post to be in direct response to the issue cowboyz faces. My bad.

However, I also disagree that a WoF or current vehicle license is material - it isn't - it hasn't contributed if the vehicle is actually roadworthy.

Also, having current evidence of inspection (WoF) but with a WoF defect present (if a contributing factor to a crash) is material and you could be declined cover on that basis.

In short, the status of your WoF & vehicle license is largely irrelevant.

(BTW this is information I have had confirmed from several loss adjusters)

[kwaka_crasher]

They can refuse to pay out if you have no WOF (as the vehicle might be faulty), but they can't refuse to pay out if you have no vehicle licence.

No. They can only refuse to pay out if the specific fault preventing it obtaining a WoF was a contributing factor and they can do that regardless of whether you have a current WoF or not. That is to say if you have a current WoF and no indicators, they could refuse to pay out if someone that would have been required to GIVE WAY hits you because you didn't indicate because it is reasonable to assume you should have known of the contributing fault.

[Mully]

No. They can only refuse to pay out if the specific fault preventing it obtaining a WoF was a contributing factor and they can do that regardless of whether you have a current WoF or not.

Good to know. Thanks for the clarification (not that I intend to use it, but still)

Back on topic:

Cowboyz, this gardening company are clearly dicks. Why don't you just get a new gardener? Or, you could ask the igardening ombudsman if they are allowed to unilaterally change the policy mid-term (especially if they are charging you the same premium).

[R-Soul]

Exactly what type of lawyer?:confused:

A South African lawyer - although insurance law is based largely in British commercial law- almost the same as NZ.
My main work is in patent law though...

[R-Soul]

Exactly what type of lawyer?:confused:

Apologies - Duly noted and corrected. Too much thread swapping...

[R-Soul]

What I am objecting to is *I* am not insured. My *bike* is. The fact that I dont have a licence is so not the point! The bike should remain fully insured.




Well this is the crux of the matter isn't it? It will depend largely in what your specific contract says. If depends whether they have insured the bike alone, or the rider or the bike and rider combo. What does it say?

In addition, does it SAY that the insurers wll have the right to halt teh contract at any time regardless of the changes in circumstance?
If it does, your'e fooked.

Does it say that they will insure the bike and rider combo as long as you have a license (or as long as circumstances "material to the contract" do not change)? If it does- you're probably fooked.

If they have insured the bike alone for a specific period of time, for all (legal) riders with no option for them to bail at will, then they are probably in the wrong. Contracts are usually self explanatory that way (if you bother to read them).

[Coldrider]

Generally your risk profile at proposal time is part of the contract.
You would gain nothing by changing insurance companies at renewal time, these circumstances are 'material' for any other insurance company and would be included as specific questions.