Protecta Insurance - Claim problems [Archive]

schnupfy

5th April 2011, 09:26

Hi all,

before I went out on a bike trip with my mate end of February this year, I signed up for a full insurance with Protecta for my BMW R1200C.

Unfortunately after ~2000km riding in a couple of days I hit a tar bump with the back wheel just before a corner and the back wheel broke out to the left and that was it.

Fortunately nothing happened (despite the sore neck) to me.

I filed a claim with Protecta and got it towed to a friends place from where Protecta arranged the bike to be shipped to Experience BMW in AKL.
At BMW they valuated the damage and the worth of the bike with the result that it is a write off :(

About a week ago I got a letter from Protecta that they have rejected my claim due to the bike not being in a roadworthy state at the time of the accident with the description that the front tire was worn out.
5 weeks before I went on the trip I got the WoF which stated 3 mm thread left at the front tire and between WoF and accident I did ~2100km of riding.
Besides that, a new front tire wouldn't have made a big difference there, as the back wheel broke out I suppose.

I strongly objected right away, but ever since I did that (2 weeks ago) I get excuses that the Claim manager is busy and working on this case but they cannot tell me anything.

Anyone had similar experiences with Protecta?
I am from Germany and in a case like that you'd go to court there. What would be the procedure here if they completely reject the claim?

Thanks in advance,
Marcus

SVboy

5th April 2011, 09:42

Hi Marcus, there is an insurance appeal process in nz you can go thru in NZ, or the small claims court. The insurance company should be able to tell you how to appeal.

Corse1

5th April 2011, 09:45

Do you have access to the bike to measure actual tyre tread depth? If it is below the standards for a WOF then you may be screwed.

In that situation its you word against there's and very difficult to prove that the front tyre had nothing to do with the accident even though you and me know it did not.

Firstly you need to check the depth. 2000km's with 3mm showing at the start sounds like you might be right. I think its 1.5mm over 3/4 of the tyre for warrant standards,

schnupfy

5th April 2011, 09:53

DMNTD

5th April 2011, 09:59

Hey there,

thanks for the ultra quick responses ;)

Might pop by the BMW shop today/tomorrow to measure that. Had already looked up the warrant standards and 2000k's should have been fine. The other thing that could have been the problem there is that the bike rolled over the side multiple times before it actually stopped. So the tire being worn could have something to do with the accident also I suppose.

Will query the insurance again to see if they have made progress there.

Thanks again.
Marcus

If they have rejected the claim essentially due to your front tyre not being of "safe standards" then I believe that it would be on them to provide the tread depth reading.
A simple formular stating that it had done xxxx-kms since its WOF should not be good enough.

I'd be asking for their proof that your bike wasn't roadworthy.

nomnomnom

5th April 2011, 12:24

I work for an insurance company over here, not that one but another.

In regards to a claim if they have rejected it, it is actually up to you to prove them wrong....

Similarly if you insure a car/bike for $6000 and its a write off, they can offer you a settlement of less than $6000 if assesor doesnt think said car/bike is actually worth $6000, if you disagree and want the $6000 its up to you to get a valuation to prove its worth. Lame I know!

I would suggest getting a professional opinion to state that the front tire condition did not contribute to the crash. Because if that is the case the insurance has no leg to stand on and will have to pay out.

bsasuper

5th April 2011, 20:11

Bugger, I was going to change to protecta this week, think ill wait a bit now and ask them more questions if I want to change:facepalm:

schnupfy

5th April 2011, 20:18

Usarka

5th April 2011, 20:54

I work for an insurance company over here, not that one but another.
Similarly if you insure a car/bike for $6000 and its a write off, they can offer you a settlement of less than $6000 if assesor doesnt think said car/bike is actually worth $6000, if you disagree and want the $6000 its up to you to get a valuation to prove its worth. Lame I know!

Does your company not do agreed value insurance?

blackdog

5th April 2011, 21:03

I think its 1.5mm over 3/4 of the tyre for warrant standards,

Nope.

A minimum of 1.5mm in all parts of the primary tread grooves.

R6_kid

5th April 2011, 21:10

They screwed my mate over once (maybe twice) before. Fight them through whatever legal avenues you can.

Rhys

5th April 2011, 22:07

Ask for a letter of dead lock, then take them to the ombudsman.
It costs you nothing :innocent:

The Stranger

5th April 2011, 23:39

About a week ago I got a letter from Protecta that they have rejected my claim due to the bike not being in a roadworthy state at the time of the accident with the description that the front tire was worn out.

First thing I'd do is get an opinion on the tyre. I would take it to both a tyre shop and someone who issues WOFs. Hopefully their opinions are consistent and in your favour. If not see if you can play them off and get them consistent in your favour then get it in writing from each - if possible. Would have to be difficult for insurer to argue with 2 "experts".

Was the road wet or dry?

I would suggest getting a professional opinion to state that the front tire condition did not contribute to the crash. Because if that is the case the insurance has no leg to stand on and will have to pay out.

If dry surely the front tyre would be a non issue. Tread exists to expel water, are not slicks superior in dry conditions?

If dry then the question is can a claim be denied due to failure to meet WOF standard per se, or can they deny your claim only if the defect is causative?

That said if the raod was wet and the tyre is in fact non compliant then I think he's screwed for sure.

Nope.

A minimum of 1.5mm in all parts of the primary tread grooves.

and/or there can not be any tread wear indicators showing - apparently.

JMemonic

6th April 2011, 07:24

Does your contract say the vehicle must be or a warrantable or road worthy state or and here is the kicker hold a current warrant? They are not the same thing, if your contract only states the vehicle must hold a current warrant and you satisfy that condition then you will be in the right, however if it states warrantable or road worthy state you may have a fight on your hands.

p.dath

6th April 2011, 08:03

...
5 weeks before I went on the trip I got the WoF which stated 3 mm thread left at the front tire and between WoF and accident I did ~2100km of riding....

I would definitely get someone to take a measurement ASAP - someone with a qualification like a mechanic certified to do WOF inspections (gives more credibility to your evidence).

nomnomnom

6th April 2011, 12:20

Does your company not do agreed value insurance?
They say its agreed value, but in the policy wording it says "we will pay out the market value up to the sum insured" which means if they think the car isnt worth the amount insured they can get out of paying you that amount....

dont get me wrong, insurance is awesome for just in case, but there are a lot of loopholes they can use to get out of claims. My advice is to fully read your policy wording, and ask lots of questions!:yes:

Trouser

6th April 2011, 12:28

JMemonic

6th April 2011, 13:26

The high court has ruled a few times on that point. If the defect was not causative then they cannot deny your claim on those grounds.

Nice to know, given my experience with some insurance companies they will use every little thing to twist out of paying out.

schnupfy

6th April 2011, 16:30

Great information guys, thanks for that.

To the road conditions: it was nice and sunny and the road was dry.

The contract says:

CONDITIONS AND SAFETY OF THE MOTORCYCLE
You must take reasonable steps at all times to make sure that the Motorcycle is

- roadworthy
- adequately maintained
- kept safe and protected from possible loss

I got the WoF (with 3mm thread according to the WoF statement) just 5 weeks before I headed south and 4 weeks before the accident I had a service done by BMW with no remark on the tire condition.

I think that is reasonable as no one can expect me to measure the thread of the tires every time before I go for a ride.

The insurance is now getting VTNZ to check the bike after I objected. Will hopefully get some good news tomorrow...

Thanks again guys.
Marcus

MSTRS

7th April 2011, 09:43

They say its agreed value, but in the policy wording it says "we will pay out the market value up to the sum insured" which means if they think the car isnt worth the amount insured they can get out of paying you that amount....

Then it's NOT agreed value, is it?

Gremlin

8th April 2011, 02:38

Then it's NOT agreed value, is it?
From what I have been told, agreed value almost doesn't exist in NZ, unless it's something like classic cover for old bikes.

Been there, tried that. Over insure, they will pay you market value, under insure, they'll pay to the policy. Welcome to insurance. :yes:

MSTRS

8th April 2011, 09:21

AA says this about Agreed Value (http://www.aainsurance.co.nz/faq/article/3651/0/0/what-does-agreed-value-mean.html)

This is what The Insurance Council of NZ says...

Agreed Value
This is where you and your insurance company agree on the value of the car at the beginning of the contract and at each renewal. If your car is written off, you are paid the agreed value in the policy.

Watch this one when renewing cover...

schnupfy

17th April 2011, 08:31

AA says this about Agreed Value (http://www.aainsurance.co.nz/faq/article/3651/0/0/what-does-agreed-value-mean.html)

This is what The Insurance Council of NZ says...

Watch this one when renewing cover...

So that means if they ask you for a value of the bike and you give them one, they basically agree on that? In that case they would have to pay more than BMW valued the bike at (which is too low from what I can tell) anyway...

The review process from the insurance is still ongoing. I wonder if they can keep the "review" going for month... Has been almost 2 now without any real news (other than claim declined)...
Man that is annoying...

MSTRS

17th April 2011, 10:08

Please correct me if I'm wrong...
As I understand insurance, you take out a policy for bike X, covering it for the amount you paid. If you crash it, the insurer will either fix it or write it off, dependent on what they say it's worth (market value). This has little to do with what you paid for this particular bike, assuming that the policy is quite new. If you aren't happy with that amount, it is up to you to provide proof that your particular bike was worth more than the market is currently paying for that make/model.
To avoid this hassle, you may opt for an agreed value policy. You will have to provide proof upfront that your bike is worth what you say it is. And you will have to do that at each renewal of the policy, otherwise the value reverts to market rates.
Are you saying that the insurer accepted your individually valued bike for cover (agreed value policy) and then reneged on the deal? Or did you ensure it for what you paid (more than market value) and the insurer wouldn't honour that value?
There is a world of difference...

schnupfy

18th April 2011, 09:07

MSTRS

18th April 2011, 09:54

Hey.

sorry you are right, I misread your post. I have only given them the value of the bike when I signed on for the insurance. So it is not the same as the agreed value you mentioned. Still a bit silly why they ask you in the first place and you pay a higher premium although you might never get the money you had given them.

Cheers,
Marcus

It has ever been so. You can bet your boots that the small print on the policy will cover this.
The owner is always responsible for ensuring the value being covered is accurate. The insurer will happily take your premium money, but will not pay out more than the market value. Very difficult to prove your bike was worth more, when it's a twisted wreck, eh?
This has caused many people a lot of problems over the years, hence Agreed Value becoming a popular method of insuring.

DMNTD

18th April 2011, 10:00

The owner is always responsible for ensuring the value being covered is accurate. The insurer will happily take your premium money, but will not pay out more than the market value. Very difficult to prove your bike was worth more, when it's a twisted wreck, eh?
This has caused many people a lot of problems over the years, hence Agreed Value becoming a popular method of insuring.

Hence why it's good to do a PAV before there's any "A" involved :sunny:

MSTRS

18th April 2011, 10:07

Hence why it's good to do a PAV before there's any "A" involved :sunny:

Indeed.
What's to stop anyone from taking out a policy for $20,000 (say) on a bike that's worth less than $5,000, and then 'having an accident', to claim the pingers?

DMNTD

18th April 2011, 10:37

What's to stop anyone from taking out a policy for $20,000 (say) on a bike that's worth less than $5,000, and then 'having an accident', to claim the pingers?

Brains...hopefully :shutup:
Very different if someone acquires a mint deal at time of purchase. $5,000 for a $20,000 bike...insures it for $20,000.

MSTRS

18th April 2011, 11:37

Very different if someone acquires a mint deal at time of purchase. $5,000 for a $20,000 bike...insures it for $20,000.

Yeah, that's another one where the insurance industry can 'get' you....
If they find out that $5000 was what you paid, and you didn't provide other proof that it was worth $20,000 - no prizes for guessing what they'll pay out...

DMNTD

18th April 2011, 12:29

Yeah, that's another one where the insurance industry can 'get' you....
If they find out that $5000 was what you paid, and you didn't provide other proof that it was worth $20,000 - no prizes for guessing what they'll pay out...

...market value :yes:
Have seen it happen 5 or 6 times.

Owl

18th April 2011, 18:20

Yeah, that's another one where the insurance industry can 'get' you....
If they find out that $5000 was what you paid, and you didn't provide other proof that it was worth $20,000 - no prizes for guessing what they'll pay out...

No, it's still a market value policy!

If you're given a $20,000 vehicle as a gift, is it worth $0?:no:

schnupfy

19th April 2011, 13:51

Yep, the fine print says market value. I will have to live with that if I ever get the money from the insurance.

I just got word that it is likely to be declined again today due to the same reason (front tire worn). That took them almost 3 weeks to decide that and now I can apply for a letter of dead lock where it will be reviewed again (which I am sure) will take another month or so... Very Very annoying. I thought having a current WoF done + a service before a trip like that should be reasonable enough to meet the insurance Obligation of keeping it roadworthy at any time...

schnupfy

2nd May 2011, 10:10

Hi again,

I still have problems with Protecta here. They have now declined the claim and I requested a letter of dead lock to take it to the ombudsman more than two weeks ago and they haven't provided anything yet. When I call them they always say it is with the manager and when I ask to talk to them they just say that the Manager doesn't have a number or is not available.

Another pretty annoying thing is that they said they were sending a VTNZ guy over there to check the bike. The workshop told me that someone was there (which Protecta now denies) and after that a guy from the insurance came by to take some pictures and quickly afterwards the claim was denied again.

What would be the next logical step here? Should I go to a lawyer?

Thanks in advance there.

Cheers Marcus

Owl

2nd May 2011, 10:17

What would be the next logical step here? Should I go to a lawyer?

Did they decline the claim in writing? If so, you should be able to take that to the Ombudsman.

Grahameeboy

2nd May 2011, 21:28

Interesting case

Protector can only decline the claim if the roadworthiness issue was the cause of the accident...Insurance Law Reform Act. The fact that the tread depth may have been below the legal limit is not a basis to decline as this is a legal issue..same as if you were drunk in charge and hit in the rear....not a reason to decline claim because the "drunk" issue was not cause of accident.

If this was a car then there would have to be "loss of control" and at least 2 unroadworthy tyres for the claim to be declined so I guess with a bike 1 is enough but the onus is on the Insurer to show that the accident would not have happened but for the front tyre issue.

Cannot use recent WOF as a defence because it is only a test on the day and not evidence that the tyre at the time of accident was okay.

I guess with just 3mm left and knowing you were doing a long trip should have indicated that the front should be replaced...easy to say in hignsight I know...but still a valid point going forwards.

I would go via the Ombudsman route now as it seems Protector are dragging things and to me is an inferred "reached an impass"

schnupfy

3rd May 2011, 18:05

Thanks for that, will put a letter together and send it to the Ombudsman. Will see how it turns out.

Cheers,
Marcus

motorbyclist

3rd May 2011, 23:53

Have you actually looked at the front tyre? If the tread is no less than 1.5mm and wear indicators are not showing, then they have nothing to stand on.

If you HAVE worn the tyre to a less than warrantable standard, then you will have to prove that the tyre wear was not a contributing factor in the accident. Probably should have replaced the tyre before the trip, anyway.

so, what's the front tyre look like?

The owner is always responsible for ensuring the value being covered is accurate. The insurer will happily take your premium money, but will not pay out more than the market value. Very difficult to prove your bike was worth more, when it's a twisted wreck, eh?

even worse when it's been stolen and never recovered (as happened with myself and Protecta a few years ago) - they will happily quote the trade-in value of the motorcycle rather than the actual market value.... ever noticed how a dealer will offer you 3 grand for a bike when he's selling the same thing in worse condition for 7 grand right next to him on the shop floor and it would be 5-6 grand from a private seller?

Ocean1

4th May 2011, 00:58

Since the rules regarding tread depth for WOF changed I've been meaning to measure up a few new front tyres. I reckon some of them would be bloody lucky to be legal off the rack, there's bugger all tread depth.

I somehow doubt the tyre manufacturers check NZ law before detailing the wear indicators in the moulds for each new tyre either.

nomnomnom

4th May 2011, 16:39

I just called Protecta to ask a general question, you can refer to the call if you like (they will be able to track it and listen to it)

today 04/05/2011 @ approx 4:32pm. Called 0800 435 7868, spoke to Rachel who transferred me to Chris in Claims. I called from 09 969 3500.

I asked Chris in Claims, "if a motorcycle is insured through you, has an accident and is a write off, has something wrong with it, but that something does NOT contribute to the crash, will you pay out the claim?"

He confirmed yes. He then went on to say that if the tread depth of a tire is low, but this does not contribute to the crash then the claim would be paid. After he said this, he followed it up with "this is assessed on a case by case basis".

So not too sure how much this will help but hey it doesnt hurt to try :)

Owl

4th May 2011, 17:13

I just called Protecta

Good one!:yes:

slowpoke

4th May 2011, 19:50

Good one!:yes:

How so? I doubt they record every single phone call. If you were a judge/ombudsman and somebody rocks up and says "Look, there's this bloke on the internet,I've never met him but he says he called up the insurance company and apparently they said blah blah" how impressed would you be?

Be realistic.

You have to prove that the tyre was not a contributing cause, not just be kinda sure or fairly certain or similarly vague. You're gonna need photo's of the site and thing that caused the accident (tar lump? WTF?), eye witness accounts, expert opinions on state of tyre/machine etc etc. You need the kinda info that you would be prepared to bet your house on that it's absolutely right, or don't even bother presenting it. Are you prepared to bet your house that the tyre is 100% roadworthy?

Latte

4th May 2011, 19:53

I remember there was a claim from a manufacturer that their tyres worked just as well at 1.5mm as they did at full depth.

a) If it wasn't a dream and
b) If you're able to get some official literature

it might help your case.

Owl

4th May 2011, 20:18

How so? Be realistic.

Pull your head in!

I said "Good one", referring to making the phone call and getting some clarification.

Ocean1

4th May 2011, 20:28

How so? I doubt they record every single phone call.

They do indeed.

You have to prove that the tyre was not a contributing cause

I believe the burden of proof lies with the insurance company. I'd say if you called their bluff and asked your lawyer to drop them a wee note they'd fold.

nomnomnom

5th May 2011, 10:55

How so? I doubt they record every single phone call. If you were a judge/ombudsman and somebody rocks up and says "Look, there's this bloke on the internet,I've never met him but he says he called up the insurance company and apparently they said blah blah" how impressed would you be?

Yeah they do record every call. I know this as I have worked in several call centers and know the information required to track down a call (hence this all posted in my previous post).

Plus as stated earlier in the thread I work at an Insurance Company - so I have a fair idea what Im talking about.

PS im a chick - hence the female symbol included in my posts.

Kthxbi :p

Matt_TG

18th May 2011, 21:45

This should have been solved without all the bother. What you need to bring to Protecta's attention is Section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, which states in gobbledegook:

11 Certain exclusions forbidden

Where—

(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.

I have bolded the relevant part, which can be translated as follows:

It doesn't matter if you had a bald tyre, no WOF, or even were pissed out of your tree, as long as those circumstances did not contribute to the loss, BUT it's your responsibility to prove it.

Anyone who has sat even the most basic insurance exams will be presented with a similar scenario of a car parked at lights with bald tyres when it's rear ended and insurers still have to pay. Low cost insurers often seek to find any exclusion they can and apply it - but often the plebs there don't understand insurance law, which is actually quite fair if you know how to interpret it.

I'm a Loss Adjuster with over 13 years in the industry. PM me if you want more info.

schnupfy

23rd May 2011, 17:56

Hi guys,

thanks again for the input here. I have sent the whole documentation to the ombudsman last week (I have never received the letter of deadlock although requested over a month ago). I was riding with a friend who saw the whole accident (riding behind me) who happens to be a (German) police officer. He wrote a witness report that states that he saw the back wheel braking out to the left which subsequently caused me to lose control of the bike.
This and the fact that the WoF report did not highlight the front tire to be worn 2100km before the accident should hopefully be counted in my favour.

Thanks again.

Marcus

schnupfy

24th May 2011, 11:07

This get's more and more annoying. Because the insurance hasn't send me a letter of deadlock ISO won't progress with my claim. I have requested the letter more than 5 weeks ago and called multiple times. Now ISO told me to escalate to Allianz...

Cheers,
Marcus

Jantar

24th May 2011, 11:20

nomnomnom

24th May 2011, 11:34

Good to hear updates Marcus, sucks that they are mucking you around tho! I hope everything works out in your favour - after all whats the point in having insurance if the pricks wont pay out!

bikerdarrell

3rd June 2011, 16:38

Don't go with protecta! They suck.

schnupfy

20th June 2011, 11:17

Hi there,

here a little update in this matter.

After I tried for some time to get the Letter of Deadlock from the Insurance I finally got a Lawyer to look at it. He drafted me a letter to the insurance and 2 days after they had received it I finally got my LoD... They of course said that they already had sent it out weeks ago which is just ridiculous...
Anyway, not it is with the Ombudsman.

Cheers,
Marcus

schnupfy

23rd July 2011, 07:27

Hi there,

another update in this matter...

I have handed the whole documentation over to the Ombudsman more than a month ago and guess what. The Ombudsman is still waiting for the documentation from the Insurance... This Insurance company is absolutely useless. Taking your money and when they have to make a stand - they fail utterly...

I hope that this'll clear up soon... Extremely annoying...

Cheers,
Marcus

DIN PELENDA

23rd July 2011, 09:41

I have problem with Protecta Insurance. I got both bikes insured with them, and after more then 10 years with them I have first claim on my R1 2003 last month. Bike was insured for 9 k. I told them bike is worthed 4.5 is got 4.5 k of extras on it, Olin's shock front and back, Hi pro steering damper, full titanium system, power commander ....it was all in insurance agreement. After write off they give me 3.5 k. So I call them and they say market value of bike is 4.5 k minus my excess = 3.5k. So I ask what about extras on bike. They say extras do not affect market value of bike. So I ask to go and put standard parts beck on and take extras of bike. He then told me if I do that, it will affect quote (market value):bs: So I can't do that. You always loose in battle with insurance companies :argue::brick: PROTECTA SUCK MY BIKE :baby::angry2:

Owl

23rd July 2011, 09:54

You always loose in battle with insurance companies :argue::brick:

Not always:innocent:

NordieBoy

23rd July 2011, 11:43

So the extras don't affect market value, but they affect market value?

Ocean1

23rd July 2011, 13:36

So the extras don't affect market value, but they affect market value?

It's a special insurance market. :facepalm:

I finally got a Lawyer to look at it.

Time to call him again I'm afraid. The insurance company knows exactly how to play this game, better in fact than the regulatory authorities. The only thing they'll pay any attention to is a valid legal threat or widespread bad publicity.

Me? I'd ask the lawyer if it's possible to charge them for costs associated with the process. And I'd be offering to spend every cent I obtained on any eventual payout on a well documented but extrememly unflattering add in the local rag.

schnupfy

25th November 2011, 19:05

Hey there,

another update in this matter - and I am afraid that Protecta is still not done.
After a long backwards and forwards with the Ombudsman from FSCL (which btw. did not even know about the insurance law paragraph that Matt_TG provided) they asked an accident specialist (Todd McCormack) to analyse the facts.
He came to the conclusion that in dry conditions (which was the case), it is highly unlikely that the front tyre had caused the accident and that a tyre with even less tread wouldn't have had more grip than a worn tyre like I had on the bike.
He then goes on and guesses the speed that was required for an experienced rider to "fly" out of that corner and just states 103km/h - and marks that as excessive speed.
This can't be true for 2 reasons. A controlled full stop with a bike like that from 100km/h would need at least 100m brake way. The bike though came to a stop (sliding & rolling) after less than 50m.
The insurance of course picks that up and states that there was one of yellow those 55km/h signs just before the corner and with that willful and reckless driving caused the accident...

And the Ombudsman does support that as well...
Man this is annoying...
Cheers,
Marcus

cold comfort

25th November 2011, 22:31

I was insured with Protecta from 2006 to 2008. It was similar stories to this one that made me decide to change companies. When I did change (to John Baker) Protecta tried to make things as difficult as they could.

After reading your hassles I'm glad I changed.

Really grateful for this thread. Kiwibike initially signed me up for Protecta but, on the strength of this thread, I insisted they change it. Just as well as had a cosmetic write off on an SV 650 on a track day. Star were very reasonable. PIA as i was $750 under insured so dropped a grand on excess but overall hassle free-unlike the sad stories on this page.

Matt_TG

27th November 2011, 19:51

The insurance of course picks that up and states that there was one of yellow those 55km/h signs just before the corner and with that willful and reckless driving caused the accident...

I'd challenge that decision. Two thoughts:

* I'm sure (but stand to be corrected) that the yellow speed signs ending in "5" are advisory signs - for heavy vehicles.

* Were you charged and convicted of willful and reckless driving? If not how can they prove that was the case.

It's been long time mate but I would keep on at it.

NordieBoy

27th November 2011, 20:52

* I'm sure (but stand to be corrected) that the yellow speed signs ending in "5" are advisory signs - for heavy vehicles.

For vehicles.

schnupfy

29th November 2011, 08:01

Thanks guys. Am just drafting a letter. Will see if that gets somewhere.

TimeOut

29th November 2011, 16:27

I'd challenge that decision. Two thoughts:

* I'm sure (but stand to be corrected) that the yellow speed signs ending in "5" are advisory signs - for heavy vehicles.

* Were you charged and convicted of willful and reckless driving? If not how can they prove that was the case.

It's been long time mate but I would keep on at it.

I second all of that.

The advisory signs are for all vechicles but they are advisory

danman752

19th January 2012, 09:04

Hi All.

Ive just had a claim rejected from Protects also and was goggling to see if any one else has.
Looks like they are good a buls**ting their way out of paying.

My claim was on my 4wd that I had mechanical breakdown cover on. The cam belt snapped within its service period and their reason for reject was that they cam belt had not been checked within the last 40,000kms.
Considering I have on had the vehicle for about 20,000kms.....shouldn't it have been checked when I brought it.....

The car dealer agrees that their out is not good enough so is going to help.

I will be taking this as far as I can to get it resolved.

Protecta Insurance = SCAM!!!!

Cheers Dan.

skippa1

19th January 2012, 21:20

Jerry74

19th January 2012, 22:27

motorbyclist

21st January 2012, 11:30

Check out Golightly Insurance, underwrites with Vero.

Dave Golightly 0800 800786 or 03 3572428, awesome package and he specialises in bikes.

If you do want an insurance agent that actually looks after biker rider then Dave Golightly is well worth a look.

+1

I've been with him for years now and nothing but good experiences.

Friendly guy, happy to explain things and gave me some good advice

actungbaby

21st January 2012, 23:33

My total loss was paid by Protecta, though the first thing they asked for from the bike shop was photos of both tyres, the warrant and rego. It still took some time to pay but they did. $14k. I am insured with them now, though only because of the lack of choice.

yes people have told me that without wof your got no isurance what is the true story though is if insurance company
can work if the accident was cuased by unsafe vechile yours then they can refuse payout. if the warrent is expired

In my case a car pulled out in front me and my bike was total loss but either bike shop covered me or as it wasint
Anything i did and they got money from his company it was sweet.

I must forgot to get done in time was 30 years ago though so yeah.

Think above is bit rough as how do you know your cam belt going snap on my mazda mx5 its 80.00 km before belt has to be changed and dealer did it , i whould assumed the dealer responsablty to make sure car was fit so no wonder saying going help you in my mind they just as much in the gun.if took your money and not changed the belt themselves or least got it checked , the auckland dealership changed both the water pump and my cam belt b4 i brought the car and told me about it , because the car was at 82 thousand
and what work been done on it, mind you clutch was shoot and didnt tell me that , but thats part that wears and not covered like brake pads etc

I take this up with Lmvd or what its called these days as you say your only done 20 thousand kms so either dealer should told you needed to be done in another 20 kms and then the insurance should paid for it then

Oh its mta isint it , also just say to them in person you dont think this is fair and ask to speak to a manager put it in writing
then say you want be reasonable but your take it further if you cant come to a agrement .

Mention free legal advice can be had from citizens advice usually have alwer aviaible certin nights of the week

A well written fax also get somone write for you i had this when in 90s had fault with computer comm0odore amiga , the company commodore
where draging the chain talking about repair , its was simple hard drive fix, but i didnt want the hassle , so my friend faxed the retailer insteed
adressed to the manager , well within 30 mins i had phone call from commodore saying replacement pc was on its way and to send old unit
back full replacment no repair as unit was broken on arrival ,

in your case the car firm should be dealing with this as not your resposibilty your the 3rd party insurance was brokered through the dealer
to sell you the vechile they get cut of the price you paid also and fee for hp also

honesty i go right to your dealer be poilte and say hay am your customer please look after me

actungbaby

21st January 2012, 23:44

[QUOTE=danman752;1130237922]Hi All.

Ive just had a claim rejected from Protects also and was goggling to see if any one else has.
Looks like they are good a buls**ting their way out of paying.

My claim was on my 4wd that I had mechanical breakdown cover on. The cam belt snapped within its service period and their reason for reject was that they cam belt had not been checked within the last 40,000kms.
Considering I have on had the vehicle for about 20,000kms.....shouldn't it have been checked when I brought it.....

The car dealer agrees that their out is not good enough so is going to help.

I will be taking this as far as I can to get it resolved.

Protecta Insurance = SCAM!!!!
read my answer dan
dont just roll let them screw u will if they can

cowboyz

22nd January 2012, 06:01

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?

2. Warrents. What is the point in a warrent? Its a pointless waste of time. Not having a warrent has no bearing on insurance, and having a warrent has no bearing on insurance.

More specifically to case at hand.. If you werent CONVICTED of dangerous driving.. YOU WERENT! End of story!

Owl

22nd January 2012, 08:08

Know where you're coming from cowboyz, but I have more of an issue with the local tow truck driver doing PAV's for the insurance companies. And yes, he's still doing them.:facepalm:

haydes55

22nd January 2012, 08:51

Had a crash xmas day, was still on my paper licence so took a few days before I got my licence to send the paperwork away early January. Protecta have my claim, told me my excess (even though the 3rd party is paying my excess because he's blind) and are waiting for an assessment from the dealer. the dealer has had the bike since before new years, at least 3 weeks, and hasn't managed to figure out how much it will cost to fix yet =/ so I'm spending summer with no bike because I've already rung up 3 times to try get them to hurry it up and do their job and still nothing. I'm sure an assessment wouldn't take more than 45 minutes to see all that's broken, then look online at your spare parts database and tally all the cost up to fix it. Or tell me if the forks/frame is bent, write it off and give me money to buy another bike.

Protecta

23rd January 2012, 11:06

In response to Dan’s post above, we’re sorry to hear that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his claim.

While we understand that readers will be aware we are unable (for Privacy and Legal reasons) to discuss details of a policy or a claim in the public arena, we wrote to Dan last week explaining the details of his claim and his further options.

Please be assured that PROTECTA Insurance always use independent industry approved loss adjusters, assessors and investigators. For those seeking more information, Insurance companies commonly use two independent External Complaints Resolution providers: “Financial Services Complaints Limited” and the “Insurance and Savings Ombudsman”. Decisions made by either provider are binding, and Protecta Insurance will always honour their decisions.

Regarding cambelts in particular, Automotive research company “The Car Connection” has a really helpful article for consumers about cambelt (timing-belt) replacement, on their website here:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1053252_when-to-replace-your-timing-belt

Cambelt inspection and replacement is a critical element of PROTECTA Insurance’s minimum service requirements for our Mechanical Insurance policies, and we always advocate that - if there is any doubt - consumers should replace their cam belt to avoid the hassle of preventable breakdowns.

Marcus, in response to your original issue, if you still have any concerns regarding your claim, please don’t hesitate to contact us to discuss it.

We always encourage feedback from our clients, both positive and negative, as this helps us to strive for continual improvement in our policies and systems. If you have a story to share, please feel free to post it up here on KiwiBiker, or contact us on 0800 4357 868.

Kind regards,

James Wood,
National Claims Manager,
PROTECTA Insurance New Zealand Limited.

MSTRS

23rd January 2012, 11:13

... Not having a warrent has no bearing on insurance, and having a warrent has no bearing on insurance...

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

Gremlin

23rd January 2012, 11:45

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

23rd January 2012, 12:25

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

23rd January 2012, 13:47

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/public/1977/0014/latest/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

23rd January 2012, 14:33

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

23rd January 2012, 15:06

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

23rd January 2012, 15:37

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

23rd January 2012, 16:53

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.

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

MSTRS

23rd January 2012, 17:01

:facepalm: so it is
Well spotted :laugh:

motorbyclist

23rd January 2012, 17:21

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

24th January 2012, 13:10

:facepalm: so it is
Well spotted :laugh:

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

GingerMidget

31st January 2012, 20:24

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.