Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

[NSR-Dan]

Thought i would mention im one of these sorry sods working in the insurance industry.

So i thought i would share my knowledge to all you bikers out there who need those pain in the arse question answered

and dont ask for a quote cause im not doing one for you.

[Squeak the Rat]

So i thought i would share my knowledge to all you bikers out there who need those pain in the arse question answered
How to cure haemorrhoids?

[kickingzebra]

Heres one... I have noticed some bike shops are reluctant to quote what a bike would have been worth after a writing off type accident.
If they do quote, they'll often lowball the value.
Is this anything to do with liability from the insurance cos end??

[Sniper]

Can I claim a rust fix up on insurance or can I claim old fairings on insurance?

[NSR-Dan]

Heres one... I have noticed some bike shops are reluctant to quote what a bike would have been worth after a writing off type accident.
If they do quote, they'll often lowball the value.
Is this anything to do with liability from the insurance cos end??

This is a commen issue because its hard to tell what condition the bike was in before being written off.
doesnt affect cost or liability. i think some bike shops dont like dealing with
insurance companys. its an idiotic thing to do though cause most panel beaters charge alot higher for insurance companys cause they can make more money.

advise is find an insurance company that insures for agreed value. that way when you make a total loss claim, the insurance company wont ask for valuations and will pay what the bike was insured for.

[NSR-Dan]

How to cure haemorrhoids?
dont sit down

[NSR-Dan]

Can I claim a rust fix up on insurance or can I claim old fairings on insurance?

wear and tear and rust is allways an exclusion and never covered by all insurance companys.

its seen as negligence that you wernt looking after your bike. same thing like if you leave your keys in your car and the engine running and it gets flogged, insurance wont pay out.

[Squeak the Rat]

its seen as negligence that you wernt looking after your bike. same thing like if you leave your keys in your car and the engine running and it gets flogged, insurance wont pay out.
Taking a small leap of logic, does this mean it is possible / likely that an insurance company will say you are negligent for NOT locking your motorcycle when you leave it at the local pub and it gets stolen? And therefore not give you insurance?

I'm talking about disk/cable/throttle locks here....

Cheer
STR

[emaN]

i got a van for $3.5k off a mate - said van would normally sell for $5-$6k.

AA asked for my purchase price, and insured it accordingly.
I told 'em it would be 5-6K to replace, but they wouldn't budge from insuring it for purchase price.

is this common? should i have lied? i didn't (& still don't) wanna do that.
(I'm thinking of leaving AA anyhow; they're just paying lip-service to the LTSA anyways...)

cheers dude.

[sAsLEX]

how come excess is so high for theft?? Fuck me 2k no point insuring my bike at that basically as once they have revalued the bike I might get a dollar back!

I understand Dover having a high excess for crashing again for example but for theft, thats why you pay the premiums they demand.

[NSR-Dan]

Taking a small leap of logic, does this mean it is possible / likely that an insurance company will say you are negligent for NOT locking your motorcycle when you leave it at the local pub and it gets stolen? And therefore not give you insurance?

I'm talking about disk/cable/throttle locks here....

Cheer
STR

na that will never happen. it will be more like if you leave the keys in the bike. if its parked up normaly of and keys with you then stolen, then they will have to pay out.

Some companys offer discounts for extra security, if you add this on your policy, but never use it, they can call a breech of contract. kinda the same with contents insurance, if you have an alarm and it is on your policy you will get a discount on premiums, but if your are burgled and its not on, they will not pay out. but in most cases its hard to prove. you could say it had a lock and was stolen with it. they cant really prove otherwise, as they may of picked the bike up onto a truck or something

[NSR-Dan]

i got a van for $3.5k off a mate - said van would normally sell for $5-$6k.

AA asked for my purchase price, and insured it accordingly.
I told 'em it would be 5-6K to replace, but they wouldn't budge from insuring it for purchase price.

is this common? should i have lied? i didn't (& still don't) wanna do that.
(I'm thinking of leaving AA anyhow; they're just paying lip-service to the LTSA anyways...)

cheers dude.

Thats fair enough what they said.

The whole idea of insurance is to protect your belongings and if any thing unexpected happens is to put you back in the same financial positition that you were in before the time of loss.

this is in place to protect insurance companys from fraudsters. as you could buy a car of a mate for 2000 when its worth 5000, you write it off 2 months later and they pay out $5000, you have now made $3000. im afraid this is not how insurance companys work.

(you will be suprized how many there are out there)

you would be suprized that Insurance companys dont make alot of money. State and Tower both made a loss last year, AA made around a $400,000 profit which is measly when turnover is around 80million.

[sAsLEX]

The whole idea of insurance is to protect your belongings and if any thing unexpected happens is to put you back in the same financial positition that you were in before the time of loss.


So lets see

pay 3.5 k for van bank balance reads $0 at this point
van stolen pay excess BB -$2000
bank gives you the difference BB$1500
buy van BB $-3500

yip that seems to work!>?

Shouldnt matter diddly squat what you paid for it! Its market value that they love to sput when it will make them a $$ so it should go both ways!

[gamgee]

yeah but profit excludes wages, so the employees are still getting paid, it's only the stockholders that will be losing out

[NSR-Dan]

how come excess is so high for theft?? Fuck me 2k no point insuring my bike at that basically as once they have revalued the bike I might get a dollar back!

I understand Dover having a high excess for crashing again for example but for theft, thats why you pay the premiums they demand.

highest excess i have added on a bike is $300, only time it goes up is if the bike is modified or not kept in a garage at night, call the company and find out if they will lower excess if you fit an alarm to the bike.

[sAsLEX]

highest excess i have added on a bike is $300, only time it goes up is if the bike is modified or not kept in a garage at night, call the company and find out if they will lower excess if you fit an alarm to the bike.

I have it alarmed and locked (big f off abus chain) and gaurded by a hyper active dog! hes not very big though so might need a Dogo Argentino to keep them thieves away!

[chickenfunkstar]

Is there an age at which premiums tend to decrease? If so what is the age?

Or is a case of getting insurance and then waiting a couple of years after you've got insurance for your no claims bonus to come in?

I'd sort of like to get insurance but i'd imagine most people my age have a higher chance of crashing then I do. (I'm 21 at the moment)

[MattRSK]

Hey Dan
I have a question for ya. I have insurance for 3 things, Bike/Car/Contents. These are all with different companys. Would it be a whole lot cheaper to put them all with one company?

Thanks
Matt

[NSR-Dan]

Is there an age at which premiums tend to decrease? If so what is the age?

Or is a case of getting insurance and then waiting a couple of years after you've got insurance for your no claims bonus to come in?

I'd sort of like to get insurance but i'd imagine most people my age have a higher chance of crashing then I do. (I'm 21 at the moment)

Generaly with most companys after 25 years, but what most people dont know the shoot back as soon as you hit 75.

[NSR-Dan]

I have it alarmed and locked (big f off abus chain) and gaurded by a hyper active dog! hes not very big though so might need a Dogo Argentino to keep them thieves away!

I recon look around at other companies, you should be able to find cheaper elsewhere.

[NSR-Dan]

Hey Dan
I have a question for ya. I have insurance for 3 things, Bike/Car/Contents. These are all with different companys. Would it be a whole lot cheaper to put them all with one company?

Thanks
Matt

usually not, if you added house to package you would get a discount.

[MattRSK]

OK thanks Dan.

[sAsLEX]

I recon look around at other companies, you should be able to find cheaper elsewhere.

not many would be cheaper than what I am currently paying! :blip:

[NSR-Dan]

Is there an age at which premiums tend to decrease? If so what is the age?

Or is a case of getting insurance and then waiting a couple of years after you've got insurance for your no claims bonus to come in?

I'd sort of like to get insurance but i'd imagine most people my age have a higher chance of crashing then I do. (I'm 21 at the moment)

oh yeah you NCB (no claims bonus) makes a big diff. if you have been 5 years claim free, an AA member and have a cage to insure, call aa cause if you make a claim it wont lower you NCB

[Sketchy_Racer]

soo,

a $1500 excess on a 150cc M/C is a little steep yes?

If so SCREW YOU STATE

:edit: That is to cover the other party if i screw up ;)

[Magua]

$1500 excess on a 150, holy crap.

[NSR-Dan]

soo,

a $1500 excess on a 150cc M/C is a little steep yes?

If so SCREW YOU STATE

:edit: That is to cover the other party if i screw up ;)

Could be to do with your age and licence, if your under 25 and dont hold a full bike licence, then it would be the same as the car a excess when its put up.

[bobsmith]

Don't know, I'm with state (I'm 22) I got my contents/car/bike insured with them, I get discount for that and my excess on the bike is $500 for all instances... that's for 2 riders me and my g/f and I made sure that they knew that I've only had my learner's for 2 days when I insured the scooter and bike 3 months later..... strange.

EDIT - I have been claim free for almost 7 years though (been driving since I was 15)

EDIT2 - Shit that means I've spent about $3000 on insurance companies and have not had anything back!!!! (that's only for third party car and fire/theft just paid another grand this year for the contents, scooter and bike....)

[NSR-Dan]

i would check that excess just incase, state is notorios for not giving you all the extra information over the phone. it could be $500 standard excess an then there is an extra excess for your age which they havent told you about. when i hade my car with state it was 500 and then when i came to make a claim they said it would be an extra $400 for my age, and it only has standard excess on the policy, but when you check the policy exclusions it says there are extra imposed excesess for learner and under 25/21 drivers

and something real funny is how state say in there adds that they pay 99 percent of claims, within the insurance industry state is knowen as one of the worst for paying out claims and when the do the alway pay the least that they have to, funny that, most panelbeaters will tell you they hate dealing with them too.

[Clivoris]

Hi NSR Dan. Company I deal with have been really reasonable although I haven't had need to claim. They cater for the distinguished and refined over thirties. When I started doing track days a few years back I was suprised to be told that as long as it wasn't racing I would be covered. I have felt smug about this ever since, only to have my bubble burst by a forum member last week. Apparently the indemnity form signed as part of registration for track days, means that insurance companies can't pursue other parties in the event of an accident. This then invalidates my insurance. True or false bro? :ride:

[Highlander]

After being claim free for 10 years with Sate I made a fairly decent claim on car, then a minor claim on House within 6 months now I'm with AMI.

State were dearer and service was shocking. Had no probs with AMI.

[NSR-Dan]

Hi NSR Dan. Company I deal with have been really reasonable although I haven't had need to claim. They cater for the distinguished and refined over thirties. When I started doing track days a few years back I was suprised to be told that as long as it wasn't racing I would be covered. I have felt smug about this ever since, only to have my bubble burst by a forum member last week. Apparently the indemnity form signed as part of registration for track days, means that insurance companies can't pursue other parties in the event of an accident. This then invalidates my insurance. True or false bro? :ride:

I think you will find that Insurance companys cant pursue other parties while racing, while you are riding on the road its covered under the normal policy. only companys that will insure race vehicles is classic (which insures through vero), vero and IAG.

vehicles are usually never covered while racing and even on a race track. i think with AA we cover cars on a race track but only if they are not racing (show days, saftey cars etc) and if they dont exceed the legal speed limit of 100kmh

[Highlander]

I checked with AMI before I went to a track day and after checking with the manager was told that as long as it was for rider training and not race training or a race day no problem.

[NSR-Dan]

I checked with AMI before I went to a track day and after checking with the manager was told that as long as it was for rider training and not race training or a race day no problem.

yeah thats fine, but there will still be an exclusion that your not covered if they can prove you were exceeding 100kmh.

[Highlander]

They'd be keeping that wee gem quiet until I made a claim I guess.

[Clivoris]

I think you will find that Insurance companys cant pursue other parties while racing, while you are riding on the road its covered under the normal policy. only companys that will insure race vehicles is classic (which insures through vero), vero and IAG.

vehicles are usually never covered while racing and even on a race track. i think with AA we cover cars on a race track but only if they are not racing (show days, saftey cars etc) and if they dont exceed the legal speed limit of 100kmh
I am with Classic cover and the definition I was given of racing was no racing start, no places awarded, no lap counting or timing. Does this make sense to you? Might I actually be covered? I s'pose the 100kmh limit stuffs that tho. Best not crash then.:innocent:

[NSR-Dan]

I am with Classic cover and the definition I was given of racing was no racing start, no places awarded, no lap counting or timing. Does this make sense to you? Might I actually be covered? I s'pose the 100kmh limit stuffs that tho. Best not crash then.:innocent:

I was meaning classic offers racing cover to race vehicles, its differrent to your standard bike policy, it comes under comercial cover i think, and most vehicle are generaly not road registered.

its there for the big sods that need insurance on there expensive cars and have advertisement contracts to keep. generaly that kind of insurance covers the minorist of events anyway like theft and malicious damage etc.

[NSR-Dan]

So lets see

pay 3.5 k for van bank balance reads $0 at this point
van stolen pay excess BB -$2000
bank gives you the difference BB$1500
buy van BB $-3500

yip that seems to work!>?

Shouldnt matter diddly squat what you paid for it! Its market value that they love to sput when it will make them a $$ so it should go both ways!



$2000 for excess. thats insane yours should be $300 unless your under 25 or not on a full licence and even then its no where near $2000.
if you buy anything cheap no one is goin to insure it for more than what you payed for it.

that would be unfare on everyone else who has insurance there still goin to loose there excess and get back what they payed for even if they paid full for there vehicle. so if it gets stolen you loose $300, which is still better than not having insurance at all.

its probably benificial to insure at a company that offers market value policies, instead of agreed value, that way you will get payed the market value of the van. so if you insures it for what you say its worth they will pay you the value of a replace ment van at the time of accident which they could say its only worth 4000 even though you payed premiums based on 5000 or so. still if the insurance company finds out you payed less than what you insured it for they will call fraud and get out of it. i have seen it many times in court rulings with other companys.

[Oscar]

I think you will find that Insurance companys cant pursue other parties while racing, while you are riding on the road its covered under the normal policy. only companys that will insure race vehicles is classic (which insures through vero), vero and IAG.

vehicles are usually never covered while racing and even on a race track. i think with AA we cover cars on a race track but only if they are not racing (show days, saftey cars etc) and if they dont exceed the legal speed limit of 100kmh

I think you'd best have another look at your policy document, Bub.

Firstly, if you sign an indemnity at a track day, you are technically prejudicing your insurers rights (of recovery). However, since 1)most indemnity forms hold the organiser harmless, not the other riders and 2) you can't contract out of negligence - you or your insurer can certainly have a go.

Notwithstanding that most motor vehicle insurance policies have some sort of exclusion dealing with "speed events", it is not correct to say that they are never covered on a race track. You would certainly be covered by any insurer if you were riding around a race track on your own.

Similarly, can you point to the exclusion in the policy that refers to speed limits? As the speed limit doesn't apply to a track, the insurer would have to rely on the "reasonable care" exclusion, which is much more restrictive.

[Zukin]

Hey

Why do insurance companies charge you more for insurance depending on the CC rating of the bike??
They dont do this with cars at around the same value

EG (these numbers are plucked out of the sky)
Model Value Premium
06 DRZ250 - $7000 $450
04 DRZ400- $7000 $570

This happend to me just last month, I asked them and they told me that the I pay more as the bigger CC bikes are more dangerous?? I said its the rider thats dangerous not the bike?
I then said if I brought a 1500cc Mini for $5000 and a V8 for $5000, would the premium be the same? Yes unless it was on the list of regularly stolen cars (Evos and WRX's etc)

Cheers

[emaN]

Thats fair enough what they said.

this is in place to protect insurance companys from fraudsters. as you could buy a car of a mate for 2000 when its worth 5000, you write it off 2 months later and they pay out $5000, you have now made $3000. im afraid this is not how insurance companys work.

thanks dude.
i'm a 10yr+ AA member now, last claim being theft in '00, so I (like to) think I'm getting a good deal.
think i'll have a look-see at others as our total package is a couple of houses, contents, van & bike. be interesting to see what i get quoted.

[bane]

The whole idea of insurance is to protect your belongings and if any thing unexpected happens is to put you back in the same financial positition that you were in before the time of loss.

this is in place to protect insurance companys from fraudsters. as you could buy a car of a mate for 2000 when its worth 5000, you write it off 2 months later and they pay out $5000, you have now made $3000. im afraid this is not how insurance companys work.

Obviously my experience with AA must be atypical. A few years back I bought a 6 month old "demonstrator" (car) from a dealer. The dealer was keen to quit stock, and I paid 40%+ under rrp.

When I went to AA, they never asked me what i'd paid, they asked what I wanted to insure it for. I suggested a figure approx $5k above what i'd actually paid, not to rip the insurer off (in 10 years Ive never claimed on any insurance), but to make sure I could purchase a similar replacement vehicle should the worst happen.

The AA agent looked at her PC and suggested my figure was just under their suggested range, and that I may be under insuring! (the inference being I could be risking problems by underestimating the risk to the insurer..)

Thats how I view agreed value, what would it cost to replace the asset (in the same condition), as opposed to what I may have paid.

[NSR-Dan]

I think you'd best have another look at your policy document, Bub.

Firstly, if you sign an indemnity at a track day, you are technically prejudicing your insurers rights (of recovery). However, since 1)most indemnity forms hold the organiser harmless, not the other riders and 2) you can't contract out of negligence - you or your insurer can certainly have a go.
Notwithstanding that most motor vehicle insurance policies have some sort of exclusion dealing with "speed events", it is not correct to say that they are never covered on a race track. You would certainly be covered by any insurer if you were riding around a race track on your own.

Similarly, can you point to the exclusion in the policy that refers to speed limits? As the speed limit doesn't apply to a track, the insurer would have to rely on the "reasonable care" exclusion, which is much more restrictive.

i was implying there is comercial insurance available for race vehicles, the superV8s have insurance on there vehicles other wise if its in a total loss crash they would be out of pocket a few million dollars. i work for motorsport auckland (voluntary) so i know that racers have insurance on vehicles. and most race vehicle insurers are aware of the indemnitys you sign when racing.


the indemnity for you sign on race days is so that you insurance company cant recover costs of other racers and the track.

and all personal lines insurance have exclusions that you vehicle wont be covered while exceeding the nationa NZ speed limit of 100km regardless if you are offroad, on a road or on a race track. and most say your vehicle is not covered on a race track full stop unless you have been given approval by your insurance company first. at AA we wont even insure a car that has a roll cage becuase we see that the car has been built with the intention of being raced.

[NSR-Dan]

Hey

Why do insurance companies charge you more for insurance depending on the CC rating of the bike??
They dont do this with cars at around the same value

EG (these numbers are plucked out of the sky)
Model Value Premium
06 DRZ250 - $7000 $450
04 DRZ400- $7000 $570

This happend to me just last month, I asked them and they told me that the I pay more as the bigger CC bikes are more dangerous?? I said its the rider thats dangerous not the bike?
I then said if I brought a 1500cc Mini for $5000 and a V8 for $5000, would the premium be the same? Yes unless it was on the list of regularly stolen cars (Evos and WRX's etc)

Cheers

As far as i know it does, on our systems there is an area that we put the cc rating of the vehicles, but vehicle are generaly rated on the type of vehicle it is, like how many of that type stolen in each year, price of parts for that vehicle and then how many have been in accidents etc.

i would say a V8 would cost more in insurance than a 1500, but there may be other factors, like the mini could have a higher theft risk than the V8.

Bikes on another hand, all types have been in accidents and the theft risk of the bikes is so similar between models that most companys take the cc rating as the main area to rate premiums on.

also an insurance company may have say 10000 cars insured and 400 bikes, so most of the companys resources goes into researching car types instead of bike types.

[NSR-Dan]

Obviously my experience with AA must be atypical. A few years back I bought a 6 month old "demonstrator" (car) from a dealer. The dealer was keen to quit stock, and I paid 40%+ under rrp.

When I went to AA, they never asked me what i'd paid, they asked what I wanted to insure it for. I suggested a figure approx $5k above what i'd actually paid, not to rip the insurer off (in 10 years Ive never claimed on any insurance), but to make sure I could purchase a similar replacement vehicle should the worst happen.

The AA agent looked at her PC and suggested my figure was just under their suggested range, and that I may be under insuring! (the inference being I could be risking problems by underestimating the risk to the insurer..)

Thats how I view agreed value, what would it cost to replace the asset (in the same condition), as opposed to what I may have paid.

naughty agent, if its a new car we should allways ask what the purchase price is.

if you do however pull a cheeky you can sometimes insure your car for more than what you payed just dont tell the agent what you did pay for it. but then there is the downside, if the value you say alot higher than the estimation on the companys systems they can request a valuation before accepting your value, and sometimes if it comes to a total loss claim, and the company thinks it was insured to high they will ask for your purchase agreement and then pull up the recorded call when you took out the insurance to see if what you told the agent and what your purchase agreement states adds up. (when you signed your decleration at all companys there is a bit that states "you agree that everything you have stated is the truth" etc.

[Jamezo]

Oh ho! I got a call from State today, to inform me of the changes to their motorcycle insurance plans. Apparently cheaper.

I currently pay $56 a year for third party only, and they quoted $138 a year fully comp (!) for my stated $1300 lump. For an 18 year old learner license-holder, that sounded pretty crazy to me!

I asked if this was an initiative in response to the deals from specialist motorbike insurers, and they said that was exactly the case. I'll be inquiring when I get something worth insuring.

[Oscar]

i was implying there is comercial insurance available for race vehicles, the superV8s have insurance on there vehicles other wise if its in a total loss crash they would be out of pocket a few million dollars. i work for motorsport auckland (voluntary) so i know that racers have insurance on vehicles. and most race vehicle insurers are aware of the indemnitys you sign when racing.


the indemnity for you sign on race days is so that you insurance company cant recover costs of other racers and the track.

and all personal lines insurance have exclusions that you vehicle wont be covered while exceeding the nationa NZ speed limit of 100km regardless if you are offroad, on a road or on a race track. and most say your vehicle is not covered on a race track full stop unless you have been given approval by your insurance company first. at AA we wont even insure a car that has a roll cage becuase we see that the car has been built with the intention of being raced.

I think you have "all personal lines" mixed up with "ones I have read".
I've just had a quick look at the Vero, NZI and State policy wordings and I don't see an exclusion specific to any speed limit. If AA has one (and if it does I would caution anyone against insuring a vehicle using a document that perscriptive), it is asking for all sorts of trouble under the Insurance Law Reform Act. Section 19 (IIRC) restricts insurers from declining a claim for a reason that is not directly related to the loss. In this case, they would not be able to decline a claim based soley on the insured's speed, where that speed was not directly related to the accident.

There certainly is, however an exclusion dealing with "preparation for or participation in...speed events.." and I know that if asked, some insurers (ClassicCover/Vero for example) will grant cover for "rider training days" where certain parameters are met.

I would also repeat that you can sign 50 forms before racing and still not contract out of the law of the land. The waiver signed by racers assumes that the track owners and organisers are competent and operating in good faith. Any negligence on their behalf makes and hold harmless agreement so much toilet paper...

[saul]

I am with Classic and have letter saying that they cover Track days for training etc.:scooter:

The difference is that track days are not race days.:innocent:

There is a huge difference isn't there? :yes:

[Oscar]

The difference is that track days are not race days.:innocent:

There is a huge difference isn't there? :yes:

Is that a Tui Ad?

[NSR-Dan]

I think you have "all personal lines" mixed up with "ones I have read".
I've just had a quick look at the Vero, NZI and State policy wordings and I don't see an exclusion specific to any speed limit. If AA has one (and if it does I would caution anyone against insuring a vehicle using a document that perscriptive), it is asking for all sorts of trouble under the Insurance Law Reform Act. Section 19 (IIRC) restricts insurers from declining a claim for a reason that is not directly related to the loss. In this case, they would not be able to decline a claim based soley on the insured's speed, where that speed was not directly related to the accident.

There certainly is, however an exclusion dealing with "preparation for or participation in...speed events.." and I know that if asked, some insurers (ClassicCover/Vero for example) will grant cover for "rider training days" where certain parameters are met.

I would also repeat that you can sign 50 forms before racing and still not contract out of the law of the land. The waiver signed by racers assumes that the track owners and organisers are competent and operating in good faith. Any negligence on their behalf makes and hold harmless agreement so much toilet paper...

With most accidents that are caused while speeding (it must be prooved) the police come back with a report saying speed was factor in the accident, so under the Law Reform Act an insurance company can choses not to pay a claim. if any car was speeding and has an accident (from what i have seen) is that 99% of the time speeding was a factor and the police will supply a report stating this. if there is no report of the vehicle speeding then yes they cant refuse a claim.

A recent cliam with a friend of mine she was hit buy a tp party vehicle while she was pulling out of a driveway, in most cases it would of been her fault but since the tp was speeding and the police report stated this my friend got off paying for damages to his car. the only downside is her insurace company couldnt recover costs of the tp because have of the accident was her fault. but his insurence company didnt pay for his damages at all, because Insurance policys also have exlusions stating if the the vehicle is being use illegaly there will be no cover. so because exceeding the stated speed limit is deemed illegal there is no cover.

Insurance companys have been cooperating with police for years, and have been asked to no insure if speeding is a main factor.

Rider training days if you look at it closer all call them they are implying rider traning to improve a riders skills for the road. and the certain parameters they will set are usually speed limitations. and if there is a claim they will get the investigators in to see if any limitations set were broken.

[NSR-Dan]

and if you say any road law broken can be classed as illegal. i was meaning ones that can be classed as a criminal offence. main ones being, speeding, dangerous driving and driving under the influence.

[Oscar]

With most accidents that are caused while speeding (it must be prooved) the police come back with a report saying speed was factor in the accident, so under the Law Reform Act an insurance company can choses not to pay a claim. if any car was speeding and has an accident (from what i have seen) is that 99% of the time speeding was a factor and the police will supply a report stating this. if there is no report of the vehicle speeding then yes they cant refuse a claim.

A recent cliam with a friend of mine she was hit buy a tp party vehicle while she was pulling out of a driveway, in most cases it would of been her fault but since the tp was speeding and the police report stated this my friend got off paying for damages to his car. the only downside is her insurace company couldnt recover costs of the tp because have of the accident was her fault. but his insurence company didnt pay for his damages at all, because Insurance policys also have exlusions stating if the the vehicle is being use illegaly there will be no cover. so because exceeding the stated speed limit is deemed illegal there is no cover.

Insurance companys have been cooperating with police for years, and have been asked to no insure if speeding is a main factor.

Rider training days if you look at it closer all call them they are implying rider traning to improve a riders skills for the road. and the certain parameters they will set are usually speed limitations. and if there is a claim they will get the investigators in to see if any limitations set were broken.


A typical insurer response, having mixed up their policy wording with the law of the land...

All I can say is that I'm glad that none of my clients are insured with the AA.

The exclusion dealing with "illegal use" is complete rubbish. You could decline half your claims on the basis of illegality - failure to give way, following too close, etc etc..

[The Pastor]

What I would like to know is this, Why are there conditions where you cannot get insured? eg having no/learner licence and on a big bike? Why don't they just increase the ammount you have to pay?

[Oscar]

What I would like to know is this, Why are there conditions where you cannot get insured? eg having no/learner licence and on a big bike? Why don't they just increase the ammount you have to pay?

You are correct.
Theoretically you can insure anything - you just have to find someone willing to do it (and you have to be prepared to pay the premium). We have Lloyd's Syndicates to do stuff like dat.

[NSR-Dan]

A typical insurer response, having mixed up their policy wording with the law of the land...

All I can say is that I'm glad that none of my clients are insured with the AA.

The exclusion dealing with "illegal use" is complete rubbish. You could decline half your claims on the basis of illegality - failure to give way, following too close, etc etc..

Of course its a typical insurer response, we get trained in the policys and go to court hearings for claims. we know the law written about insurance and every company has the basic fundimentals all companys have illegal use written into there policys its jus worded diff, even aa doesnt have it written like that.

Two biggest reason vehicle claims get declined is for fraud and illegal use of a motor vehicle.Not giving way etc is accidental negligence so of course claims get paid out. only time there refused is if its known negelence like speeding (10km or so over the limit no one cares about), under influence etc.

I love how you say AA is bad, recent consumer report have voted it top side by side with AMI, for having the best policys and payout on claims

You sound like one of those guys that call up every day to bitch and moan cause you have nothing better to do, and have you ever been insured with AA, if not dont bad mouth a company you have never had experience with.

and someone excesive speeding and then has a crash doesnt deserve to paid out anyway, would you want some one who was driving round a corner at 130kmh, cross's the center line and hits an oncoming car and kills the occupants then be paid out for repairs on there car. anyone in there right mind would say no. or how about drunk drivers that kill people everyday. people on p that drive into crouds or houses, think there insurance companys should pay for there cars and third party liability, i dont think so, they go to court and end up paying out of there own pocket.

[NSR-Dan]

oh and of course policies are mixed in with the law of the land. why because its um..................the law you idiot

[The Pastor]

Sounds like mr insuracne is getting a little bit defensive....

[Mr. Peanut]

He's giving his time and knowledge to help people out, he doesn't have to do that.

Keep it constructive.... :blah:

[NSR-Dan]

Sounds like mr insuracne is getting a little bit defensive....

oh well..... get paid to put up with guys like that at work.

so outside work it gives me a chance to speak my mind

[kickingzebra]

Hey, I appreciate you taking the time!!! The last thing I want to do when I get home from work is work related things, so good on you bro!!
Green bling for the contributor!!

[Oscar]

oh well..... get paid to put up with guys like that at work.

so outside work it gives me a chance to speak my mind


I have no problem with people contributing – search this site and you’ll see I’ve posted stuff about insurance and finance that I wrote and was originally published in Kiwi Rider.

This guy sets himself up as an expert and has made several errors of fact/law.

Not only that, when someone disagrees, he gets hissy…the only thing he’s got dead right so far is his red bling to me where he’s says I’m arrogant. I am..

[Speedracer]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

[Oscar]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

A good example of stupid underwriting.
The theft risk has nothing to do with riding experience.
Do you know a broker?
Or call Star.

[Jantar]

and if you say any road law broken can be classed as illegal. i was meaning ones that can be classed as a criminal offence. main ones being, speeding, dangerous driving and driving under the influence.
None of these are criminal offences. These three offences are covered by the Transport Act, not the Crimes Act. They can only be treated under the Crimes Act when they are a cause of an offence under the Crimes Act. eg. dangerous driving causing death.

[NSR-Dan]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

statistics and company portfolio for motorcycle risks. the main reason high underwriting guidlines are set on certain risks is because companys cant finantialy afford to take on higher risks, thats why companys like AA will only insure people that have more experiance. money made from car insurance premiums is kept for car claims. so if a company doesnt have many people with bikes paying premiums they have to protect themselves but imposing higher underwriting guidlines, not generaly premiums as they have to stay compeditive

Think of it this way premiums for 10 people with cars say $300 for a year each and 1 has an accident that cost $3000 to repair, the business makes no money. so its better to not take on a higher risk, with bikes main one being inexperianced riders.

some one with 2 years riding experiance with will be more likely to crash then someone riding 4 years, most kb member will tell you that. also with the 150cc being a posability, get 2 learner riders and put one on say an fzr150 and the other on a NSR250, the one riding the nsr will be more likely to crash than on the fzr due to it being heavier more powerfull ect. also remember most underwriters are not experts on bikes cars ect and make all there decisions on statistics given to them by the LTSA so there not making guesses.

insurance companys dont make much money and rob people with "high" premiums.

and can people not listen to oscar. he doesnt work in insurance and i doubt never has. someone who has read some policy books and thinks they can answer all your questions is just silly, you can go do that yourself.

so oscar if you want to answer people's questions, go make your own thread, and if you try and argue that you think im wrong. how about let people make up there own idea and put your point of view across, dont try and say everything i say is wrong.

[NSR-Dan]

None of these are criminal offences. These three offences are covered by the Transport Act, not the Crimes Act. They can only be treated under the Crimes Act when they are a cause of an offence under the Crimes Act. eg. dangerous driving causing death.

yeah you know what i mean. the serious ones you can be prosecuted for.

no one is goin to summon you to a court hearing for following to close etc unless you do it 20 times or you were racing the guy infront of you lol.

[NSR-Dan]

(not even just theft the bastards)

its becuase AA doesnt have a policy for "theft only" on bikes or cars. doesnt exist never has done. nothing in the system to work on too, so they wouldnt even be able to work out a premium for you.

[Oscar]

and can people not listen to oscar. he doesnt work in insurance and i doubt never has. someone who has read some policy books and thinks they can answer all your questions is just silly, you can go do that yourself.

so oscar if you want to answer people's questions, go make your own thread, and if you try and argue that you think im wrong. how about let people make up there own idea and put your point of view across, dont try and say everything i say is wrong.


Bwahahahaha.
You complete knobend.
Not only do I work in insurance (as a Senior Broker specialising in Liability Issues) , I've worked on the development/creation of half a dozen motorcycle schemes since the '80s including franchise specific ones and lately eBike.


As for making up my own thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=2373

....been there done that.

[Oscar]

statistics and company portfolio for motorcycle risks. the main reason high underwriting guidlines are set on certain risks is because companys cant finantialy afford to take on higher risks, thats why companys like AA will only insure people that have more experiance. money made from car insurance premiums is kept for car claims. so if a company doesnt have many people with bikes paying premiums they have to protect themselves but imposing higher underwriting guidlines, not generaly premiums as they have to stay compeditive

Think of it this way premiums for 10 people with cars say $300 for a year each and 1 has an accident that cost $3000 to repair, the business makes no money. so its better to not take on a higher risk, with bikes main one being inexperianced riders.

some one with 2 years riding experiance with will be more likely to crash then someone riding 4 years, most kb member will tell you that. also with the 150cc being a posability, get 2 learner riders and put one on say an fzr150 and the other on a NSR250, the one riding the nsr will be more likely to crash than on the fzr due to it being heavier more powerfull ect. also remember most underwriters are not experts on bikes cars ect and make all there decisions on statistics given to them by the LTSA so there not making guesses.

insurance companys dont make much money and rob people with "high" premiums.




This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.

The problem within the insurance industry is the "Knock for Knock" agreement - this is a holdharmless agreement between most insurers (I don't think AA are a member) whereby they only pay for their own insureds damage, notwithstanding who's at fault. Fault is only determined to see who gets to pay uninsured losses (i.e. the excess).

The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

[scumdog]

This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.
The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?

[Oscar]

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?

I'll ask the guys at Classic Cover and come back to you.

[Jantar]

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?
I saw some research carried out in England that showed the largest percentage of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents, however the great majority of these did not result in injury or sufficient damage to make the insurance statistics.

The age old statitistic "90% of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" is a misquote and should have read "collisions" not "accidents". The origional study was carried out on behalf of the ACU, and only involved multi vehicle accidents, not single vehicle accidents. From memory the actual figure was less than 90%, but that sounded better than the mid 80s figure that was produced.

The warning was printed on the old ACU competition licence as a reminder that we have to watch out for the other vehicle as they are not looking for us.

[Ixion]

Bwahahahaha.
You complete knobend.
Not only do I work in insurance (as a Senior Broker specialising in Liability Issues) , I've worked on the development/creation of half a dozen motorcycle schemes since the '80s including franchise specific ones and lately eBike.


As for making up my own thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=2373

....been there done that.

Ah. eBike? Then may I ask you a question ? I rummaged through the site, just seeing how much various combinations would cost (lots!).

But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.

Now, this seems a bit tricky to me. Especially for older bikes. Does this mena that if you put the rego on hold while you were doing a rebuild (as happens), and the bike was stolen or lost in a gargre fire , the insurance would not pay out, because it was not registered (probably not road worthy either, cos, eg, the engine was removed ) ?

Or if you were in an accident and your rego had expired the isnurance company could avoid liability .Even though registration is a tax thing, and could not have any bearing at all on an accident. A roadworthy/current WoF I can accept - but registration?

Care to comment?

[Oscar]

Ah. eBike? Then may I ask you a question ? I rummaged through the site, just seeing how much various combinations would cost (lots!).

But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.

Now, this seems a bit tricky to me. Especially for older bikes. Does this mena that if you put the rego on hold while you were doing a rebuild (as happens), and the bike was stolen or lost in a gargre fire , the insurance would not pay out, because it was not registered (probably not road worthy either, cos, eg, the engine was removed ) ?

Or if you were in an accident and your rego had expired the isnurance company could avoid liability .Even though registration is a tax thing, and could not have any bearing at all on an accident. A roadworthy/current WoF I can accept - but registration?

Care to comment?

Yup.
Firstly I should say I have no association with eBike now (it's being run out of Australia).


This is good example of what our young friend got so wrong earlier.

What the policy says is one thing, what NZ law says is another.
Under the Insurance Law Reform Act, an insurer would be pushing it uphill to decline a claim based on lack of registration. They would have to prove that the lack of rego was a contributing factor to the claim (tricky).

[NSR-Dan]

Under the Insurance Law Reform Act, an insurer would be pushing it uphill to decline a claim based on lack of registration. They would have to prove that the lack of rego was a contributing factor to the claim (tricky).

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.


But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.

[NSR-Dan]

This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.

The problem within the insurance industry is the "Knock for Knock" agreement - this is a holdharmless agreement between most insurers (I don't think AA are a member) whereby they only pay for their own insureds damage, notwithstanding who's at fault. Fault is only determined to see who gets to pay uninsured losses (i.e. the excess).

The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

ok.
1. did i say car v bike accidents, no i said accidents in general, and most accidents with bikes involve the bike alone from spills, gravel, throttling on to early in the corner ect. insurance compnays look at all statistics from the police not just from the insurance companys. and its is well knowen driving all vehicles that skill come from experiance ths is general knowledge.

2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.

3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company

4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.

[Oscar]

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.

No, they can't.
I'll type this very slowly so you can keep up:

Notwithstanding what it says in your policy, the law of the land (various iterations of the Insurance Law Reform Act and the Fair Trading Act) says something different. Now before you go troubling yourself to say something pithy like "Yes, we can..." in reply, read this:

Section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977.


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 added the emphasis.
Now piss off and stop giving insurance a bad name...

[Oscar]

ok.
1. did i say car v bike accidents, no i said accidents in general, and most accidents with bikes involve the bike alone from spills, gravel, throttling on to early in the corner ect. insurance compnays look at all statistics from the police not just from the insurance companys. and its is well knowen driving all vehicles that skill come from experiance ths is general knowledge.


No you didn't (and frankly I don't now why I'm bothering to argue insurance with a guy who can't spell the word), however most single vehicle claims you list are usually not the subject of claims as they are under the excess.

As for getting stats from the police - would you like to show us some? As far as I am aware the police don't keep those sort of figures.




2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.


According to our claims dept, the AA is not a member of the Knock for Knock. Check your facts.



3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company


The article was published in Kiwi Rider in 2001 and was written aimed at Joe Average. You are correct however, we don't like insurance companies - they have claims departments full of pedants like you looking for the easy decline.



4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.


Insurance Claims Register? QBE and The Whothefuckcares Insurance?
I'm a Broker, Sunshine - I represent the client, and don't give a flying fuck about organisations set up to harass the consumer.

[Ixion]

Well, that seems clear enough. The insurer cannot avoid liability by an irrelevant exclusian. And very properly so. Thank you for that. I am interested to see the actual statute, there are so many conflicting arguments.

But the eBike thing, you say, is now based in Australia, and maybe Australian law is different (which would not affect a NZ claim though).

[Oscar]

Well, that seems clear enough. The insurer cannot avoid liability by an irrelevant exclusian. And very properly so. Thank you for that. I am interested to see the actual statute, there are so many conflicting arguments.

But the eBike thing, you say, is now based in Australia, and maybe Australian law is different (which would not affect a NZ claim though).

Always glad to help - it's in here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11.

Our young friend might learn summat there, too.

[NSR-Dan]

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.

[Grahameeboy]

ok.


2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.

AA is not in K4K.......................

3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company

Please explain and I will see if I can answer.

4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.

Insurance Claims Register.....think Tower are one......it is an anti fraud register of claims loaded by member Insurance Co's

.................................

[Oscar]

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.


Jeez, you don't give up do you?

1. The correction you made was wrong - State is a wholly owned subsidary of IAG.

2. The article was written five years ago, I know work for the main company.

3. We write our own policy wording and insurers accept it. That way our clients don't have to put up with chickenshit policy wordings like yours...

[Oscar]

.................................

I'm pretty sure QBE isn't in it (the ICR).

You guys aren't in the K4K either, are you?

[Grahameeboy]

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.

You are on dodgy ground considering you have made some mistakes......

[Grahameeboy]

I'm pretty sure QBE isn't in it (the ICR).

You guys aren't in the K4K either, are you?

M & G are.............

[Grahameeboy]

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.

Not having a registration is not an exclusion.

You are wrong, the Insurance Law Reform Act says that the claim can only be declined if the 'factor' is a contributory factor / cause of accident.

So if you have an unroadworthy vehicle which does not have WOF or say had a bald tyre and was hit in rear, the claim cannot be declined because it was not causative to accident.

Even 1 bald tyre would be hard to hold up under 'Declinature. If would have to be 2 to be 100% sure

[Oscar]

M & G are.............

Oh, OK.
Next time Ray comes to Hamilton, come with him...

[Mr. Peanut]

I'll stick with 3rd party. If I break it, it's my fault.

Just like the real world :yes:

[Grahameeboy]

Oh, OK.
Next time Ray comes to Hamilton, come with him...

Bully......................this NSR guy is a sad guy cause most of his info is wrong....bet he works for State??

[Oscar]

Bully......................this NSR guy is a sad guy cause most of his info is wrong....bet he works for State??


Nah - AA.
He's been trashing my insurance thread, the bastid.

[Grahameeboy]

Nah - AA.
He's been trashing my insurance thread, the bastid.

and he thought AA were in K4K???...........which AA is it then!!!...he he:wait:

[NSR-Dan]

As for getting stats from the police - would you like to show us some? As far as I am aware the police don't keep those sort of figures.

there passed on to the LTSA that provides them insurance companys.



According to our claims dept, the AA is not a member of the Knock for Knock. Check your facts.

strange we just had a claim the other day that involved knock for knock and i have never heard of membership.



The article was published in Kiwi Rider in 2001 and was written aimed at Joe Average. You are correct however, we don't like insurance companies - they have claims departments full of pedants like you looking for the easy decline.

sorry i am not a claims consultant. i am a senior underwriter. i guess people can make there own mind up who to believe. someone who works in finance not actual insurance, or an underwriter that changes, reviews and modifies policys all the time.



Insurance Claims Register? QBE and The Whothefuckcares Insurance?
I'm a Broker, Sunshine - I represent the client, and don't give a flying fuck about organisations set up to harass the consumer.

i find it amusing that you cant explain what its there for and refered it as a system to harass consumers.

it is where claims are recorded so all registered companys can look up someones claim history. its not there to harass consumers its there to prevent fraud from people trying to lie about there insurance history just to get insurance.

brokers are registered with the ICR, i assume you work for blackwood and doyle, as they insure through QBE which correct, is not registered with the ICR. also you didnt know AMI is not registered is strange which is one of the most well knowen facts of the insurance sector

[NSR-Dan]

Well, that seems clear enough. The insurer cannot avoid liability by an irrelevant exclusian. And very properly so. Thank you for that. I am interested to see the actual statute, there are so many conflicting arguments.

But the eBike thing, you say, is now based in Australia, and maybe Australian law is different (which would not affect a NZ claim though).

god damn it

if its writen in the contract that the vehicle must be road worthy and registered and its not at claim time, thats a bloody breech of contract and cover can be cancelled alltogether and no claim payed out.

[Oscar]

there passed on to the LTSA that provides them insurance companys.



strange we just had a claim the other day that involved knock for knock and i have never heard of membership.



sorry i am not a claims consultant. i am a senior underwriter. i guess people can make there own mind up who to believe. someone who works in finance not actual insurance, or an underwriter that changes, reviews and modifies policys all the time.



i find it amusing that you cant explain what its there for and refered it as a system to harass consumers.

it is where claims are recorded so all registered companys can look up someones claim history. its not there to harass consumers its there to prevent fraud from people trying to lie about there insurance history just to get insurance.

brokers are registered with the ICR, i assume you work for blackwood and doyle, as they insure through QBE which correct, is not registered with the ICR. also you didnt know AMI is not registered is strange which is one of the most well knowen facts of the insurance sector

If you are a Senior Underwriter with AA, God help your clients.
Care to show a copy of this thread to your Manager?

[Grahameeboy]

[QUOTE=NSR-Dan]

Mmmm...Brokers are not registered with ICR?? It is run by ICR and funded by registered Insurer's.

AA are not in K4K..you may have heard it in the context of a K4K accident as oppose to K4K Agreement.

[Grahameeboy]

god damn it

if its writen in the contract that the vehicle must be road worthy and registered and its not at claim time, thats a bloody breech of contract and cover can be cancelled alltogether and no claim payed out.

Read the Insurance Law Rerform Act..........sorry you are very wrong and you have just been a bad advert to Insure with AA

[NSR-Dan]

Jeez, you don't give up do you?

1. The correction you made was wrong - State is a wholly owned subsidary of IAG.

2. The article was written five years ago, I know work for the main company.

3. We write our own policy wording and insurers accept it. That way our clients don't have to put up with chickenshit policy wordings like yours...

i would like to know the companys that accept a brokers policy wordings

[Oscar]

god damn it

if its writen in the contract that the vehicle must be road worthy and registered and its not at claim time, thats a bloody breech of contract and cover can be cancelled alltogether and no claim payed out.

Seriously, you should stop digging yourself deeper.
A "Senior Underwriter" who does not know about the Insurance Law Reform Act is not a glowing endorsement for AA Insurance...

[Grahameeboy]

Seriously, you should stop digging yourself deeper.
A "Senior Underwriter" who does not know about the Insurance Law Reform Act is not a glowing endorsement for AA Insurance...

Oscar 10 4.....over and out good buddy

[Oscar]

i would like to know the companys that accept a brokers policy wordings

Most of the ones we deal with.

[bane]

oh gawd!!! wont someone think of the spelling!

great stuff guys, really enjoying this (even if I understand very little of it):blank:

[Grahameeboy]

i would like to know the companys that accept a brokers policy wordings

Mmmmm....many Insurer's have agreed Broker Policy wordings.......AA do not because they do personal insurance.

[Oscar]

Oscar 10 4.....over and out good buddy

Yeah, I'm off too.
This is a little embarrassing...

[Ixion]

god damn it

if its writen in the contract that the vehicle must be road worthy and registered and its not at claim time, thats a bloody breech of contract and cover can be cancelled alltogether and no claim payed out.

No. Not ciorrect. Read the law Mr Oscar has quoted.



..

the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions
..


Anyone (including insurance companies) can write clauses and provisions into contracts until their eyes bulge. But NONE OF THAT CAN OVERRIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It's just like the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can put a clause in your sale contracts in print a foot high and written in blood saying the CGA does not apply, and that clause will be completely meaningless and irrelevant. because the LAW has said that any such clause is void.

As, in this case, the statute quoted by Mr Oscar says that any such clause in your policy is void, except insofar as it can be shown that the exclusion was relevant to the claim

[Grahameeboy]

Most of the ones we deal with.

Now Oscar, be a darling and tell him who do......

[Oscar]

No. Not ciorrect. Read the law Mr Oscar has quoted.



Anyone (including insurance companies) can write clauses and provisions into contracts until their eyes bulge. But NONE OF THAT CAN OVERRIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It's just like the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can put a clause in your sale contracts in print a foot high and written in blood saying the CGA does not apply, and that clause will be completely meaningless and irrelevant. because the LAW has said that any such clause is void.

As, in this case, the statute quoted by Mr Oscar says that any such clause in your policy is void, except insofar as it can be shown that the exclusion was relevant to the claim

Hey, less of the "Mr." OK?
I'm not that old...

[Oscar]

Now Oscar, be a darling and tell him who do......

No....must....tear....away...from......computer... .go.....home...

[NSR-Dan]

No. Not ciorrect. Read the law Mr Oscar has quoted.



Anyone (including insurance companies) can write clauses and provisions into contracts until their eyes bulge. But NONE OF THAT CAN OVERRIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It's just like the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can put a clause in your sale contracts in print a foot high and written in blood saying the CGA does not apply, and that clause will be completely meaningless and irrelevant. because the LAW has said that any such clause is void.

As, in this case, the statute quoted by Mr Oscar says that any such clause in your policy is void, except insofar as it can be shown that the exclusion was relevant to the claim


in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.

[Oscar]

in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.

You should seriously stop now.
If you really do work for an insurance company you should not be making comments like this in a public forum.

[NSR-Dan]

You should seriously stop now.
If you really do work for an insurance company you should not be making comments like this in a public forum.

hey its all policys with most companys. i have worked for state and ami and its all very similar

[Jantar]

in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.
That is the most illogical statement I have ever read, and I would love to see you present that brfore the court. If you receive a claim on a vehicle that is not registered, and then cancel the cover, any court would decide that the cover was cancelled purely to avoid the claim. The insurance company would lose.

[NSR-Dan]

i like how mr oscar always brings up the insurance law reform act regarding claims.

i have never argued against it.
something not related to the claim/accident is irralivent.

something not followed by the policy document which was agreed on when taking the contract, is not related to claim and can be cancelled on the spot before a claim is accepted or declined. breech of contract.

if it says in your contract that the car must be registered and its not and the insurance company finds out through a claim or other purposes then the company can legaly cancell the policy. if the claim was accepted before finding out the car was not registered then the claim will have to payed out the claim but most cases will cancell the policy straight after.

(this is the most commen situation where a policy is cancelled at claims time, and i have been to many court cases which has always been won in the insurance companys favour, so if any one wants argue about the insurance act, this is a court rulling so the act was kept in mind)
if the car comes in to be looked at by an assesor before any claim is accepted, and it comes to the companys attention that the car is modified to hell and the mods were not disclosed to the company the policy would be cancelled before the claim would be accepted. because in the contract (and this is written into every insurance companys policys), and all modificatons must be disclosed to the company. anything not disclosed to an insurance company that may affect the acceptance of cover on a vehicle gives the company the right to impose larger premiums, higher excess or decline cover without refund.

im not trying to make any company such as AA look bad. im simply being honest. if i am making AA seem like a bad compnay to insure with keep this in mind. they are rated one of the best companys to insure with written in the latest consumer magazine. so if it seems so bad to you that must say alot about other companys that were rated lower then AA.

[Jantar]

Ok, so my RE5 currently has the registration on hold while I'm waiting for parts to arrive from overseas. Until those parts arrive, it can't get a wof or be registered. Are you saying that if that bike was stolen tonight that my insuarance company would cancel the policy and that the court would uphold that cancellation?

[NSR-Dan]

That is the most illogical statement I have ever read, and I would love to see you present that brfore the court. If you receive a claim on a vehicle that is not registered, and then cancel the cover, any court would decide that the cover was cancelled purely to avoid the claim. The insurance company would lose.

not really. it could be turned around to say that the client failed to disclose this to keep insurance on the vehicle, and if it was disclosed to the company when registration was cancelled then the policy would of been cancelled at that date.

it really case by case though. if it ran out of registration/WOF like a few days before the claim. I would accept the claim. if it was a few weeks, then I would send an contracted TP investigator to interview the individual to see if the customer was unaware of the vehicle having no warrent. still hard to prove that they didnt know about registration when reminder notices are sent. of the investigator came back saying that the client knew it had ran out.

if the car was stollen for example and the car was undergoing repairs to pass a warrent. i would accept the claim.

if the car had no warrent or rego for over a month then I would cancel the policy


in your case call your insurance company and let them know about it, im sure they will say its ok. and as long as they have something in the notes they wont argue if any claims arise. your contract will state that you have to disclose any changes that may effect cover on the vehicle. they will probably note on your policy that there will be no cover on the bike while being ridden on the road though. but theft should be fine.

[NSR-Dan]

i know isurance policys suck and there every loop in them to get out of alot of things.

your contract will state that every change to the vehicle has to advised, so if you didnt disclose the change, they can uphold that in court. and if you argue that you didnt know then it wall fall back on your neglegence of not reading the policy.

[Ixion]

No. Provided you can show that the lack of registration did not contribute to the loss.

Though Mr NSR_Dan is partially correct , though, I think confused. The provision in Sect 11 appears to relate to a CLAIM.

So long as there is no claim on the table, the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy. To say, in effect, "Oh, you said when you took out the policy that the bike was registered. If we had known it was not , we would not, for arcane reasons know only to us, have agreed to insure it in the first place. Now we have found out it is not, we do not wish to keep insuring it, so, goodbye". But they cannot rely on that to avoid an actual claim.

But, in fact, it occurs to me that companies trying to use this particular weasel clause (sorry, Mr Weasel, nothing personal) are hoist with their own petard.

What we speak of as "registration" is not what the law actually defines as registration. Legally, registration is the process of entering the vehicle on the register, and getting a number plate etc. What we speak of as "rego" or "registration" or "putting the rego on hold" is actually, legally, LICENSING.

So long as a vehicle has a valid number plate it is REGISTERED. Though, if you have not paid the required fee, it may not be LICENSED. So if the rego is on hold it is still registered. Not, I think , what the company envisaged. But tough titty, they do not deserve much consdieration.

[Jantar]

not really. it could be turned around to say that the client failed to disclose this to keep insurance on the vehicle, and if it was disclosed to the company when registration was cancelled then the policy would of been cancelled at that date.....
Utter nonsense. I pay my premiums to keep insurance on the vehicle, the insurance company accepts those premiums. End of story.

Current registration has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of accident, fire or theft. And, as Ixion has already pointed out, New zealand law has already stipulated that if it is not a factor causing the claim then the Insuarance company cannot deny the claim.

I wonder if this thread should be forwarded to Fair Go?

[NSR-Dan]

No. Provided you can show that the lack of registration did not contribute to the loss.

Though Mr NSR_Dan is partially correct , though, I think confused. The provision in Sect 11 appears to relate to a CLAIM.

So long as there is no claim on the table, the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy. To say, in effect, "Oh, you said when you took out the policy that the bike was registered. If we had known it was not , we would not, for arcane reasons know only to us, have agreed to insure it in the first place. Now we have found out it is not, we do not wish to keep insuring it, so, goodbye". But they cannot rely on that to avoid an actual claim.

But, in fact, it occurs to me that companies trying to use this particular weasel clause (sorry, Mr Weasel, nothing personal) are hoist with their own petard.

What we speak of as "registration" is not what the law actually defines as registration. Legally, registration is the process of entering the vehicle on the register, and getting a number plate etc. What we speak of as "rego" or "registration" or "putting the rego on hold" is actually, legally, LICENSING.

So long as a vehicle has a valid number plate it is REGISTERED. Though, if you have not paid the required fee, it may not be LICENSED. So if the rego is on hold it is still registered. Not, I think , what the company envisaged. But tough titty, they do not deserve much consdieration.


yeah i know what your saying. but they will cancell the policy in past tense.

if the registration was on hold but still warrented it would be fine. (in most cases registration on hold there would be no warrent).

it would always be taken to court to cancel the policy at claims time and would always be the courts decision. If i was attending the case i would state that the client was negligent to not advise us of the deregistration and because this is written into the agreement that it is there obligation to, so if we would have known we would of cancelled the policy as of that date so he would not of been insured and we would have no obligation to pay out on a claim now. so because the client has not upheld the agreement between us the insurance company and the client. we are calling a breech of contract and would like the policy to be cancelled as of the date the situtaion on the vehicle changed.

90% of the time the courts would rule in favour of the insurance company and the cancellation would be back dated to the time the change on the vehicle happend and the present claim would be null invoid

[NSR-Dan]

Utter nonsense. I pay my premiums to keep insurance on the vehicle, the insurance company accepts those premiums. End of story.

it is a contract and it does work both ways. insurance company accepts the premiums so you have to accept the policy wordings that they lay down.

have a read of your policy document. they are written by lawers not the underwriters. we come up with the guidelines and have lwaer employed by the company to wrod the documents and contracts etc..

not trying to piss you off or anything. but you do agree to the terms and conditions to the agreement so you have to follow them.

there should be something at the back stating when the company can cancel the policy or refuse the claim. if there is something written in it that you think does not follows the insurance reforms act then write a letter with a reference to the policy wording to the insurance ombudsmen. and it will be changed.

[Oscar]

i know isurance policys suck and there every loop in them to get out of alot of things.

your contract will state that every change to the vehicle has to advised, so if you didnt disclose the change, they can uphold that in court. and if you argue that you didnt know then it wall fall back on your neglegence of not reading the policy.

Bunkum.
Only "material" changes in risk must be advised to the insurer. An insurer can't void a policy or claim because you changed your seat cover, for example.

Not only that, there are clear legal precedents to protect the consumer, amongst them:


If a contract is ambiguous, any doubt will fall to the advantage of the consumer.
A Judge will take into account other factors, including advertising material, to determine what the policy holder thought they were buying .

[Oscar]

i like how mr oscar always brings up the insurance law reform act regarding claims.

i have never argued against it.
something not related to the claim/accident is irralivent.

something not followed by the policy document which was agreed on when taking the contract, is not related to claim and can be cancelled on the spot before a claim is accepted or declined. breech of contract.

if it says in your contract that the car must be registered and its not and the insurance company finds out through a claim or other purposes then the company can legaly cancell the policy. if the claim was accepted before finding out the car was not registered then the claim will have to payed out the claim but most cases will cancell the policy straight after.

(this is the most commen situation where a policy is cancelled at claims time, and i have been to many court cases which has always been won in the insurance companys favour, so if any one wants argue about the insurance act, this is a court rulling so the act was kept in mind)
if the car comes in to be looked at by an assesor before any claim is accepted, and it comes to the companys attention that the car is modified to hell and the mods were not disclosed to the company the policy would be cancelled before the claim would be accepted. because in the contract (and this is written into every insurance companys policys), and all modificatons must be disclosed to the company. anything not disclosed to an insurance company that may affect the acceptance of cover on a vehicle gives the company the right to impose larger premiums, higher excess or decline cover without refund.

im not trying to make any company such as AA look bad. im simply being honest. if i am making AA seem like a bad compnay to insure with keep this in mind. they are rated one of the best companys to insure with written in the latest consumer magazine. so if it seems so bad to you that must say alot about other companys that were rated lower then AA.

Do you spend a lot of time in court?

[Oscar]

it is a contract and it does work both ways. insurance company accepts the premiums so you have to accept the policy wordings that they lay down.

have a read of your policy document. they are written by lawers not the underwriters. we come up with the guidelines and have lwaer employed by the company to wrod the documents and contracts etc..

not trying to piss you off or anything. but you do agree to the terms and conditions to the agreement so you have to follow them.

there should be something at the back stating when the company can cancel the policy or refuse the claim. if there is something written in it that you think does not follows the insurance reforms act then write a letter with a reference to the policy wording to the insurance ombudsmen. and it will be changed.

You continue to miss the point in a spectacular fashion.

YOU CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COMMON LAW.

You can put anything you like in an insurance policy, but if it doesn't comply with insurance law, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer G'Tees Act, then it won't count.

Declining a claim or cancelling a policy for no regististration is a classic example of something that falls foul of all of those...

[Mr. Peanut]

Happy 1000th post you whore! :first: :nya: :first:

[Oscar]

Happy 1000th post you whore! :first: :nya: :first:

Aww shucks I never even noticed....

[NSR-Dan]

Do you spend a lot of time in court?

at least once every 2 weeks

[Oscar]

at least once every 2 weeks

Hardly surprising...

[NSR-Dan]

Bunkum.
Only "material" changes in risk must be advised to the insurer. An insurer can't void a policy or claim because you changed your seat cover, for example.

Not only that, there are clear legal precedents to protect the consumer, amongst them:


If a contract is ambiguous, any doubt will fall to the advantage of the consumer.
A Judge will take into account other factors, including advertising material, to determine what the policy holder thought they were buying .


any modification must be advised. a modification is anything the modifys the structure, engine, handling and power of the vehicle. also anything that would increase the theft risk of the vehicle must be advised, a list of things would be written on the policy.

car seat covers would be classed as an accessory.

all clients would be given a coppy of the policy books. which they are able to read. and they accept the details. and there would be a decleration the would have to accept over the phone which is recorded or sign on paper, which states that all the info they have been given is true and anything that may change change during cover must also be disclosed. if not cover may be cancelled

[Jantar]

OK, I have just re-read my policy and there is nowhere that says the bike must be continously registered. The only thing I have to notify AMI about is if I get any traffic tickets.

That suggest AA would be a company to avoid.

[NSR-Dan]

You continue to miss the point in a spectacular fashion.

YOU CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COMMON LAW.

You can put anything you like in an insurance policy, but if it doesn't comply with insurance law, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer G'Tees Act, then it won't count.

Declining a claim or cancelling a policy for no regististration is a classic example of something that falls foul of all of those...

ah but not diclosing something when in the contract it says you must then the contract can be cancelled. this falls under Contract inforcment act

if any party does not follow the agreement of a contract be it insurance or any other contract applying to anything else. there would be a breech of that contract and it would be null-invoid.

most cases it would go to court because there would allways be something conflicting with the other acts you mentioned, allways a judges decission in the end. but unregistered/warrented vehicles, modified vehicles and even if someone under 25 driving the vehicle which was not previously agreed on. the policy can be cancelled under a breech of contract. 90% of the time the judge has ruled in the insurance companys favour.

[NSR-Dan]

OK, I have just re-read my policy and there is nowhere that says the bike must be continously registered. The only thing I have to notify AMI about is if I get any traffic tickets.

That suggest AA would be a company to avoid.

anything about a WOF, or roadworthy??

AA doesnt say registered either, mentions the vehicle must be roadworthy.

we even can offer layed up cover for vehicles that have rego on hold and no warrent. this is cover for vehicles currently under repair, people goin away on holiday ect, no cover is offered while the vehicle is used on the road though.

i have my mini insured under classic restoration cover, so its covered under theft and malicious damage ect, and its not even vinned.

premiums are alot cheaper too. so AA would be a good choice for people with vehicle not on the road.

[Oscar]

any modification must be advised. a modification is anything the modifys the structure, engine, handling and power of the vehicle. also anything that would increase the theft risk of the vehicle must be advised, a list of things would be written on the policy.

car seat covers would be classed as an accessory.

all clients would be given a coppy of the policy books. which they are able to read. and they accept the details. and there would be a decleration the would have to accept over the phone which is recorded or sign on paper, which states that all the info they have been given is true and anything that may change change during cover must also be disclosed. if not cover may be cancelled
:wait:
Jeez, you certainly have stamina.
Only MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE RISK (as defined by the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977) have to be advised to the insurer. An insurer is unable to decline a claim or cancel a policy unless they have a MATERIAL reason. This is the law and no matter how many times you say to the contrary it is still the law.

A consumer is assumed to be acquainted with the basic policy tenets, they are certainly not obliged to have read the whole thing. An insurer is legally obliged, on the other hand, to make full disclosure to the insured, in plain English.

[NSR-Dan]

damn i have got my posts up tonight
cngrats to oscar for 1000

[Oscar]

ah but not diclosing something when in the contract it says you must then the contract can be cancelled. this falls under Contract inforcment act

if any party does not follow the agreement of a contract be it insurance or any other contract applying to anything else. there would be a breech of that contract and it would be null-invoid.

most cases it would go to court because there would allways be something conflicting with the other acts you mentioned, allways a judges decission in the end. but unregistered/warrented vehicles, modified vehicles and even if someone under 25 driving the vehicle which was not previously agreed on. the policy can be cancelled under a breech of contract. 90% of the time the judge has ruled in the insurance companys favour.

I may forward this whole thread to the Insurance Ombudsman. They could use a good laugh...

[Ixion]

yeah i know what your saying. but they will cancell the policy in past tense.

if the registration was on hold but still warrented it would be fine. (in most cases registration on hold there would be no warrent).

it would always be taken to court to cancel the policy at claims time and would always be the courts decision. If i was attending the case i would state that the client was negligent to not advise us of the deregistration and because this is written into the agreement that it is there obligation to, so if we would have known we would of cancelled the policy as of that date so he would not of been insured and we would have no obligation to pay out on a claim now. so because the client has not upheld the agreement between us the insurance company and the client. we are calling a breech of contract and would like the policy to be cancelled as of the date the situtaion on the vehicle changed.

90% of the time the courts would rule in favour of the insurance company and the cancellation would be back dated to the time the change on the vehicle happend and the present claim would be null invoid

Ah. Now this I know a little about. You are correct , in so far and ONLY in so far , as the changed circumstances are such that knowledge of them in the first place would have caused a reasonably prudent person not to enter into the contract in the first place. The contract can be voided ab initio, or from the time that the chnaged circumstances came into effect.

So, performance modifications, if significant , might be such. A reasonably prudent man might say "I thought I was agreeing to insure a docile shopping basket. Had I known that a turbocharged V8 had been put into it, I would never have agreed to the contract in the first place. The nature of the insured risk has materially changed. This vehicle is not, in fact, the vehicle I agreed to insure". The same cannot be said of the case where a registration lapses . There is no material change in the nature of the risk, or of the goods insured.

BTW , is there an Insurance Ombudsman? It seems very wrong and improper for insurance companies to be putting out contracts with such straw clauses in them. If I were taking out insurance and were offered such a contract I would strike out such clauses, and if the insurer objected, say farewell. But most people will not take the trouble to read such documents.

I also remind you that uberissime fides runs both ways. I think that a very good argument could be made , that by incorporating such clauses, the insurance company is not in fact acting in "utmost good faith", and is precluded from the benefit of ANY exempting clauses.

[Oscar]

Ah. Now this I know a little about. You are correct , in so far and ONLY in so far , as the changed circumstances are such that knowledge of them in the first place would have caused a reasonably prudent person not to enter into the contract in the first place. The contract can be voided ab initio, or from the time that the chnaged circumstances came into effect.

So, performance modifications, if significant , might be such. A reasonably prudent man might say "I thought I was agreeing to insure a docile shopping basket. Had I known that a turbocharged V8 had been put into it, I would never have agreed to the contract in the first place. The nature of the insured risk has materially changed. This vehicle is not, in fact, the vehicle I agreed to insure". The same cannot be said of the case where a registration lapses . There is no material change in the nature of the risk, or of the goods insured.

BTW , is there an Insurance Ombudsman? It seems very wrong and improper for insurance companies to be putting out contracts with such straw clauses in them. If I were taking out insurance and were offered such a contract I would strike out such clauses, and if the insurer objected, say farewell. But most people will not take the trouble to read such documents.

I also remind you that uberissime fides runs both ways. I think that a very good argument could be made , that by incorporating such clauses, the insurance company is not in fact acting in "utmost good faith", and is precluded from the benefit of ANY exempting clauses.

The act says any change in the risk must be "material" and material is defined as a fact that if known, would have changed a "prudent insurers" action in accepting the risk. Failure to register a vehicle is NOT material.

There is an Insurance Ombudsman, and both that office and the courts have hammered insurers over the years for using those "straw clauses".

[NSR-Dan]

yeah comes down to how much the insured new about the vehicle in hand. alot of cars w are insured with mags and other mods that were done before the insured bought the vehicle. of the insured has done alot of mods to the vehicle themselves and did not advise this it would cause probs when the insurer found out.

insurance companys allways contract TP investigators and assesors, most of the time the courts go on what they say.

[Oscar]

yeah comes down to how much the insured new about the vehicle in hand. alot of cars w are insured with mags and other mods that were done before the insured bought the vehicle. of the insured has done alot of mods to the vehicle themselves and did not advise this it would cause probs when the insurer found out.

insurance companys allways contract TP investigators and assesors, most of the time the courts go on what they say.

You live in this country, eh?
New Zealand?

[James Deuce]

Brain overloaded.

Reset mode enabled.

[NSR-Dan]

The act says any change in the risk must be "material" and material is defined as a fact that if known, would have changed a "prudent insurers" action in accepting the risk. Failure to register a vehicle is NOT material.

There is an Insurance Ombudsman, and both that office and the courts have hammered insurers over the years for using those "straw clauses".

Yeah the ombudmen is there for the consumers, we send our policy changes there to be accepted before making the official change.

ill have to check that about the material thing. only time i have had a court hearing involving unroadworthy vehicles was when they were unwarrented when first insured, so they lied on the questions when taking out the policy. (we ask if the vehicle has a current wof)

i admit i could be wrong.

[NSR-Dan]

You live in this country, eh?
New Zealand?
yeah auckland

[NSR-Dan]

wow how the hours have flew buy.

[James Deuce]

Reset failed.

Downloading new BIOS from manufacturer.

[Oscar]

Reset failed.

Downloading new BIOS from manufacturer.



Do they still make them for XT processors?

[James Deuce]

Mum told me I was an AT. Oh well.

[crazybigal]

Ok so what if you were given the car or bike? you didnt pay a cent for it .so according to your rules you cant insure it!

And agents allways try to get you to over-insure a car, its how you make $$$
then when its time to pay up! you dont get what you agreed on.

I tried to insure a Car (alfa) with AA and the rates were good, i think $100 less than state but you wouldnt insure my girlfriend at the time because she was under 21. So i got stuck with state:-( as they were the only ones who would.



naughty agent, if its a new car we should allways ask what the purchase price is.

if you do however pull a cheeky you can sometimes insure your car for more than what you payed just dont tell the agent what you did pay for it. but then there is the downside, if the value you say alot higher than the estimation on the companys systems they can request a valuation before accepting your value, and sometimes if it comes to a total loss claim, and the company thinks it was insured to high they will ask for your purchase agreement and then pull up the recorded call when you took out the insurance to see if what you told the agent and what your purchase agreement states adds up. (when you signed your decleration at all companys there is a bit that states "you agree that everything you have stated is the truth" etc.

[crazybigal]

and do you still pay the other party(may have no insurance) that gets hit by your customer if you have declined their insurance cos he was speeding?


etc.

and someone excesive speeding and then has a crash doesnt deserve to paid out anyway, would you want some one who was driving round a corner at 130kmh, cross's the center line and hits an oncoming car and kills the occupants then be paid out for repairs on there car. anyone in there right mind would say no. or how about drunk drivers that kill people everyday. people on p that drive into crouds or houses, think there insurance companys should pay for there cars and third party liability, i dont think so, they go to court and end up paying out of there own pocket.

[NSR-Dan]

Ok so what if you were given the car or bike? you didnt pay a cent for it .so according to your rules you cant insure it!

And agents allways try to get you to over-insure a car, its how you make $$$
then when its time to pay up! you dont get what you agreed on.

I tried to insure a Car (alfa) with AA and the rates were good, i think $100 less than state but you wouldnt insure my girlfriend at the time because she was under 21. So i got stuck with state:-( as they were the only ones who would.

some agents try and over insure a car if its a market value policy because you will pay premiums on the sum insured but they will only pay the market value of the car at the time of total loss. if its agreed value it usually accurate because what ever it is insured for is what the company will pay regardless of market value.

if you say the car was given to you, then the will insure the car for whats on there systems. if you say you payed a certain amount for it they will insure it for that amount. all depends on what you tell the company. similar if someone calls to cancel a joint policy (2 named policy holders, usually married couples), an insurance company will cancell the policy if you tell them you just wanted it canceled but if you mention its due to divorce or a death then the insurance company has to ask for divorce or death certs, cause it can cause problems further down the track with the policy holders solicitors, for example the wife calls to cancel the policy when they are divorced but during the court hearing the husband is given ownership of the vehicle, so we can see who owns the car and its up to husband to decide if he wanst the ex wife removed or the plicy cancelled.

so with insurance companys its best to be vauge when answering questions.

[NSR-Dan]

and do you still pay the other party(may have no insurance) that gets hit by your customer if you have declined their insurance cos he was speeding?

nope, if he is insures his compnay will recover costs. if not its up to him to take the guy to court

[gamgee]

sorry, can i just get something cleared up, my bike is insured at market value, but I'm only paying my premium on the value I bought it for about $2500, but the dealers are selling the same bike for $4000, so if my bike was stolen, would the insurance company pay out the market value - $4000?

[Fub@r]

sorry, can i just get something cleared up, my bike is insured at market value, but I'm only paying my premium on the value I bought it for about $2500, but the dealers are selling the same bike for $4000, so if my bike was stolen, would the insurance company pay out the market value - $4000?

I just purchsed a car for my other half, paid $6500 wholesale, insurance company listed value is 9-10k. They will only insure it for the purchase price, to get market value we have to get the car valued which costs about $30 at any car yard, then the insurance will do the agreed value policy.

I think from what you have said above insurance will only pay out for the sum insured ie: $2500 maximum minus depreciation from date of purchase

[Oscar]

sorry, can i just get something cleared up, my bike is insured at market value, but I'm only paying my premium on the value I bought it for about $2500, but the dealers are selling the same bike for $4000, so if my bike was stolen, would the insurance company pay out the market value - $4000?


Most insurers will pay market value to a maximum of the sum insured. A few will pay more than the sum insured (rare) and some pay agreed value (rarer).

Best ring your insurer to clarify.

[Fub@r]

Pitfall of an agreed value policy is that the insurance company would rather pay repair costs up to the agreed value rather than write the vehicle off and pay you out.

Happened to my brother once. The cost of repairs to his car was just under the agreed value and the insurance company opted to repair it. Even though the nose of the other vehicle that rear ended him ended up with the nose of her car hard up against the back of the driver seat of his car. ie half the rear of my brothers car had to be replaced. Who wants to keep a car after thats happened to it :(

Luckily for my brother he was at work and wasn't in the car at the time, person that hit him was high as a kite on drugs and didnt realise she was even on planet earth

[NSR-Dan]

Pitfall of an agreed value policy is that the insurance company would rather pay repair costs up to the agreed value rather than write the vehicle off and pay you out.

Happened to my brother once. The cost of repairs to his car was just under the agreed value and the insurance company opted to repair it. Even though the nose of the other vehicle that rear ended him ended up with the nose of her car hard up against the back of the driver seat of his car. ie half the rear of my brothers car had to be replaced. Who wants to keep a car after thats happened to it :(

Luckily for my brother he was at work and wasn't in the car at the time, person that hit him was high as a kite on drugs and didnt realise she was even on planet earth


i guess its like if your car gets stolen and then recovered, most people do want cars after thats happened. its a business so an insurer will pay what ever is less if thats the way they work.

but yeah oscars right. here are the descriptions.
market value = will pay the market value of the car at the of total loss. what they do is get 2 assesors to put a value on the car on what they think it would be worth the minute before the accident and the insurer will take an average from those values and thats what they will payout regardless of the sum insured.

Depending on the company if the assesors estimate is higher than the sunm insured, some companys will pay the market value or the sum insured, what ever is less. some companys will pay the market value regardless of the sum insured even if its more, but as oscar said this is very rare.

Agreed value= currently is an uncommon option but is a trend that alot of the big insurers are moving to as its more appealing to customers. AMI and AA i think were the first and State have just recently brought out there agreed value policy (maybe other still). what it means is that the insurer will pay the agreed value (value agreed by both the insurer and the insured) of the motor vehicle (sum insured on the policy document) regardless of the market value. but the insurer requires the vehicle so have a precise valuation so sometimes will request a valuation from a dealer, this will happen if the customer thinks that there vehicle is valued higher then the insurers estimate (which is a dealers red book estimate) or if the customers purchased the vehicle cheap of a friend or a family member.

[Clivoris]

Big ups to Sun Direct. Several years ago I had a car burn up and they paid out 2 grand more than the value that we had insured it for. Stunned me so much I have struck with them even though we have been offered cheaper policies. They wont touch my bike though.
I even rang them to make sure they weren't making a mistake about the car.

[The Pastor]

Yeah I heard of a story like that too, this guy bought an $800 beamer and the day after it got insured it got stolen they payed out $3000! but it took a while as the insurance company had to investigate etc.

[gijoe1313]

Hi there, thanks for offering your knowledge for insurance! I'm just starting out as a learner on a bike and was wondering what companies have a good policy for coverage on bikes.

I currently have my car insured with AA. Any advice or thoughts on this matter much appreciated!

[NSR-Dan]

best bet would be to try swan insurance.

AA doesnt like insuring learners on motorcycles. 4 years on a full license for insurane, they sometimes will insure restricted bikers but depends on the bike.

[NSR-Dan]

Big ups to Sun Direct. Several years ago I had a car burn up and they paid out 2 grand more than the value that we had insured it for. Stunned me so much I have struck with them even though we have been offered cheaper policies. They wont touch my bike though.
I even rang them to make sure they weren't making a mistake about the car.

Stay with Sun direct to. if you leave you wont be able to come back, as they wont take on any busness. (Sun Direct has become SIS insurance, but are keeping all there existing customers so dont worry they wont close down)

[bane]

got a quote from AA for the bike. Although ive only had a full licence for 2 years, I thought id try given my 10 year history of car/house/contents with AA - I was hoping to add the bike to have all with the company

After discussion with the underwriters, I was offered insurance - extra loading due to "lack of experience" (+15% on premium, +extra $300 on excess)

This wasnt an issue - the quote was still reasonable, except the company refused to give me any no claims bonus, even though I have 4 years of claim free motorcycle history (half 3rd party, half full cover) with my other company. I made the point to AA that a premium/excess loading was understandable, but 0% ncb sucked.

Damage done, and as such, over the next year I will be moving all my other insurances to the company that, without extra loadings, has insured me over the last 4 years. They will even match AA "ncb for life" on my car.

[Suzi Q]

Thats fair enough what they said.

The whole idea of insurance is to protect your belongings and if any thing unexpected happens is to put you back in the same financial positition that you were in before the time of loss..

Most insurance companies will insure it for more if you can prove it's worth - get a valuation done.

I work in insurance too!

[Suzi Q]

i
Agreed value= currently is an uncommon option but is a trend that alot of the big insurers are moving to as its more appealing to customers. AMI and AA i think were the first and State have just recently brought out there agreed value policy (maybe other still). what it means is that the insurer will pay the agreed value (value agreed by both the insurer and the insured) of the motor vehicle (sum insured on the policy document) regardless of the market value. but the insurer requires the vehicle so have a precise valuation so sometimes will request a valuation from a dealer, this will happen if the customer thinks that there vehicle is valued higher then the insurers estimate (which is a dealers red book estimate) or if the customers purchased the vehicle cheap of a friend or a family member.

Where are you getting your info about State from? Do you work for them?

[NSR-Dan]

got a quote from AA for the bike. Although ive only had a full licence for 2 years, I thought id try given my 10 year history of car/house/contents with AA - I was hoping to add the bike to have all with the company

After discussion with the underwriters, I was offered insurance - extra loading due to "lack of experience" (+15% on premium, +extra $300 on excess)

This wasnt an issue - the quote was still reasonable, except the company refused to give me any no claims bonus, even though I have 4 years of claim free motorcycle history (half 3rd party, half full cover) with my other company. I made the point to AA that a premium/excess loading was understandable, but 0% ncb sucked.

Damage done, and as such, over the next year I will be moving all my other insurances to the company that, without extra loadings, has insured me over the last 4 years. They will even match AA "ncb for life" on my car.

dude pm me your policy number, and ill grab the fax num for you. if you can fax me your NCB from your other company ill add an ncb for your motor cycle. the aa ncb for motorcycle is 25%, but ill do what i can do to get it added on

[NSR-Dan]

Most insurance companies will insure it for more if you can prove it's worth - get a valuation done.

I work in insurance too!

yeah i know, alot of people can be bothered to get valuations and kick up a stink aboput it. im sure you have found this too.

[NSR-Dan]

Where are you getting your info about State from? Do you work for them?

na i work for aa, only know state has agreed value is from customers that have told me that were with state