Insurance policies - other insurance clause?

[p.dath]

Why do insurance policies always have a clause that says something like "if you have another insurance policy we'll only pay what they don't".

The problem is if you have a policy that has an overlap then it means both insurance can effectively not pay out claiming the other insurance company should pay out.

For example, you have have general public liability insurance, and you have an accident on your bike causing damage to someone else's property. Suddenly your in this situation.

Or lets say I change insurance companies, and there is an overlap between when one policy ends and the other starts.


Why should an insurance be concerned with the fact that I have purchased additional cover.
Hell, if I wanted to, I should be allowed to buy insurance for my bike from two difference companies - and if I'm paying for two policies then why shouldn't I get paid out on both policies? Seems fair to me.


I think its a crap clause, but they all seem very inflexible about it. I even tried to see if I could pay to have the clause removed. But nope.

[Mully]

I guess they might think you will deliberately damage stuff to get multiple payouts.

Plus, bike insurance companies want to own the bike, so they wont be bothered by arguing who gets the wreck.

[obstacle]

So I used to work int he industry and asked this very same question. Usually they agree to pay half of whichever policy was claimed on first each. If you have 2 policies on the same bike and you claim twice they have every right (as per this clause) to pay you out the lesser amount of the two and they share the costs.

Make sense.

[crazyhorse]

Why do insurance policies always have a clause that says something like "if you have another insurance policy we'll only pay what they don't".

The problem is if you have a policy that has an overlap then it means both insurance can effectively not pay out claiming the other insurance company should pay out.

For example, you have have general public liability insurance, and you have an accident on your bike causing damage to someone else's property. Suddenly your in this situation.

Or lets say I change insurance companies, and there is an overlap between when one policy ends and the other starts.


Why should an insurance be concerned with the fact that I have purchased additional cover.
Hell, if I wanted to, I should be allowed to buy insurance for my bike from two difference companies - and if I'm paying for two policies then why shouldn't I get paid out on both policies? Seems fair to me.


I think its a crap clause, but they all seem very inflexible about it. I even tried to see if I could pay to have the clause removed. But nope.

You'd be a fuck wit in the first place to pay for two insurance policies. Everyone in their right mind knows that you can only insure goods with one company. If you took out a new policy, then you would cancel the other one, because you would be taking the other one due to better conditions, or cheaper rates or whatever, so if you had half a mind, you wouldn't have an overlapped one in the first place. Dumb post!

[Pathos]

You'd be a fuck wit in the first place to pay for two insurance policies. Everyone in their right mind knows that you can only insure goods with one company. If you took out a new policy, then you would cancel the other one, because you would be taking the other one due to better conditions, or cheaper rates or whatever, so if you had half a mind, you wouldn't have an overlapped one in the first place. Dumb post!

...that was rather rough....

[YellowDog]

I think the answer has to be is that if someone is claming from you, then why should you care.

If you have a motorcycle accident, then regardless of any other policy, the insurer of the bike is contractually obliged to address all aspects covered under their policy. The fact you have other policies which may theoretically cover some aspects of the claims relating to the accident is not relevant and hence their quite reasonable "covered by other policies condition".

[Usarka]

Try claiming health insurance after an accident. No chance.....

[Winston001]

Why should an insurance be concerned with the fact that I have purchased additional cover.

Hell, if I wanted to, I should be allowed to buy insurance for my bike from two difference companies - and if I'm paying for two policies then why shouldn't I get paid out on both policies? Seems fair to me.

Sorry buts it's a basic rule of insurance law. You can't double insure. You have one item, its damaged, you suffer 1 loss. Not 2, or 3 - just 1. And that is what you are allowed to claim for. The rule was developed to prevent fraud.

[Pegasus]

It all comes down to the basic reason that you have insurance. Insurance is there to indemnify you (put you back into the same position you were in before the loss). If you had two policies, and they both paid out in full, you would profit from a loss. This would go against the objective of insurance. It would also increase the premiums if people were profiting, (lord knows we pay enough already).

[YellowDog]

Best example (which annoys me):

I have a back ache and apply to Southern Cross to fund some treatment.
"How did you hurt your back?" they say,
"Well I notoced it whilst gardening last weekend"
"That's an ACC claim. Have a nice day. Goodbye..........."

[NZsarge]

I guess they might think you will deliberately damage stuff to get multiple payouts.

Damn! There goes my get rich quick scheme...

[Grahameeboy]

Why do insurance policies always have a clause that says something like "if you have another insurance policy we'll only pay what they don't".

The problem is if you have a policy that has an overlap then it means both insurance can effectively not pay out claiming the other insurance company should pay out.

For example, you have have general public liability insurance, and you have an accident on your bike causing damage to someone else's property. Suddenly your in this situation.

Or lets say I change insurance companies, and there is an overlap between when one policy ends and the other starts.


Why should an insurance be concerned with the fact that I have purchased additional cover.
Hell, if I wanted to, I should be allowed to buy insurance for my bike from two difference companies - and if I'm paying for two policies then why shouldn't I get paid out on both policies? Seems fair to me.


I think its a crap clause, but they all seem very inflexible about it. I even tried to see if I could pay to have the clause removed. But nope.

A Public Liability policy excludes "use of a motor vehicle".

And the reason you cannot have 2 policies for same thing and get paid out is to avoid dual insurance and is morally wrong plus when you complete a proposal you are suppose to declare this.

At the end of the day it gets sorted if you make a claim and you are indemnified...you are not suppose to make a profit out of an insurance claim

[Grahameeboy]

Best example (which annoys me):

I have a back ache and apply to Southern Cross to fund some treatment.
"How did you hurt your back?" they say,
"Well I notoced it whilst gardening last weekend"
"That's an ACC claim. Have a nice day. Goodbye..........."

That's fair enough...it's in your wording.

[Grahameeboy]

It all comes down to the basic reason that you have insurance. Insurance is there to indemnify you (put you back into the same position you were in before the loss). If you had two policies, and they both paid out in full, you would profit from a loss. This would go against the objective of insurance. It would also increase the premiums if people were profiting, (lord knows we pay enough already).

+1.....you think insurance is high...try UK

[Usarka]

Best example (which annoys me):

I have a back ache and apply to Southern Cross to fund some treatment.
"How did you hurt your back?" they say,
"Well I notoced it whilst gardening last weekend"
"That's an ACC claim. Have a nice day. Goodbye..........."

Try
"Can I claim to reverse this horrible operation I had after my crash?"
"No it's ACC"
"But I'm on a waiting list and it could take forever"
"Sorry"