Insurance-Registration-ACC

[lanci]

A few thoughts have popped into mind after reading peoples thoughts. Are as follows;

With people looking at refusing to pay registration, what will happen to their insurance cover? If they have it that is. Surely an insurance company will company will refuse cover when the note that the back has not been licensed for say, 2-3 years.

Attitudes surrounding insurance. I read somewhere on this forum that a guy wrote off 2 ZX10R's in pretty quick succession due to his own doing (not 100% on the specifics). The overall attitude of it was, oh well I was covered, haha. It's this sort of attitude that not only drives his premiums up for him but the premium for every other Joe Smoe out there. The insurance card seems to be a ticket for people to push too hard on public roads as well as people buying bikes that are potentially beyond their capabilities... At the end of the day how can we blame the insurance industry for raising premiums...

The potential ACC increase is bullshit, just let me clear this up before I carry on but there are reasons why this has been brought up by ACC and carried by the government. It does seem that bikers aren't helping their own cause by crashing, more frequently it would seem. I'm now quite used to seeing articles in the media and forums about 'motorcycle crashes' whereas 4-5 years ago it didn't seem as normal to read about it. I guess the flipside is that motorcycle registrations have increased a lot in that time and maybe the media have jumped on a new area of interest. At the end of the day I think that it is fair that motorcyclists be looked at for ACC review but lumping off-road, car license scooter riders and dare I say it, NON-ATTGAT riders with the responsible riders out there seems shithouse!

[jono035]

This has been covered by quite a few threads before. I believe Grahaemeboy was posting on the subject saying that the insurance company couldn't break their contract with you over registration/lack thereof. I'd be checking my fine print VERY carefully though.

[p.dath]

If your vehicle is not legally allowed to be on the road - the insurance company does not have to pay out.

They can still offer you insurance, and can still collect your premiums - if you are dumb enough to insure something you know is illegal and as a result can not get a pay out for.

[sleemanj]

We really need this as a FAQ.

jono is RIGHT

p.dath is WRONG

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129456513

[Ixion]

This urban myth seems to be immortal

No, an insurer cannot refuse your claim on the (sole) basis that the vehicle is unregistered. They can only refuse if they can show that in some way the lack of rego contributed to the accident. I cannot conceive of any such circumstance. Insurance law reform act 19summit.

They ARE entitled to cancel your insurance if they discover you have no rego.

EDIT: I even dun founded the law. Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 S11

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.

[Naki Rat]

I spoke to my insurer (AMI) earlier in the week regarding this.

The real problem lies in that a vehicle must be registered in order to be able to get a WOF (or COF). Therefore the unregistered vehicle then also potentially becomes one without a current WOF.

I quoted the "WOF is only proof of roadworthyness at time of inspection" view which the AMI person agreed with but the point is that even if the vehicle is maintained to WOF standard this will be a difficult thing to prove in the case of an accident damaged vehicle and so would become a major weakness if questioned by the third party, police, or whoever. The AMI lady could understand where I was coming from and was very helpful in explaining the intriquacies of the interrelationship of rego, WOF, Insurers' position and potential legal problems in the case of pursuing a claim in such circumstances, even under third party insurance cover. To paraphrase her opinion; it would be a potential can of worms that an insurer would not recommend, and would definitely want to be advised of if a customer was intending to take such an option.

I didn't pursue the option of insuring a vehicle that had had its registration put on hold but expect the illegality of driving/riding such a vehicle regularly would pose similar technical problems. I assume it would also be a 'change of circumstance' that an insurer would need to be advised of.

[grusomhat]

I spoke to my insurer (AMI) earlier in the week regarding this.

The real problem lies in that a vehicle must be registered in order to be able to get a WOF (or COF). Therefore the unregistered vehicle then also potentially becomes one without a current WOF.

I quoted the "WOF is only proof of roadworthyness at time of inspection" view which the AMI person agreed with but the point is that even if the vehicle is maintained to WOF standard this will be a difficult thing to prove in the case of an accident damaged vehicle and so would become a major weakness if questioned by the third party, police, or whoever. The AMI lady could understand where I was coming from and was very helpful in explaining the intriquacies of the interrelationship of rego, WOF, Insurers' position and potential legal problems in the case of pursuing a claim in such circumstances, even under third party insurance cover. To paraphrase her opinion; it would be a potential can of worms that an insurer would not recommend, and would definitely want to be advised of if a customer was intending to take such an option.

I didn't pursue the option of insuring a vehicle that had had its registration put on hold but expect the illegality of driving/riding such a vehicle regularly would pose similar technical problems. I assume it would also be a 'change of circumstance' that an insurer would need to be advised of.

No, no, no no no! A vehicle must have a current WOF to be able to re-license it, NOT they other way around.
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/mot...ibilities.html

[Virago]

...The real problem lies in that a vehicle must be registered in order to be able to get a WOF (or COF). Therefore the unregistered vehicle then also potentially becomes one without a current WOF...

It's actually the other way round - you must have a WOF before Rego. It can't go both ways, otherwise if both were expired you'd be fucked really.

[geoffc]

I spoke to my insurer (AMI) earlier in the week regarding this.

The real problem lies in that a vehicle must be registered in order to be able to get a WOF (or COF).........

I thought it was the reverse, you must have a warrant before you can rego for your bike. In other words warrant each 6 months or year depending on the age of your bike and put the rego on hold. That is my plan anyway. Cheers.

[Naki Rat]

It's actually the other way round - you must have a WOF before Rego. It can't go both ways, otherwise if both were expired you'd be fucked really.

If both were expired then the remedy would be to resurrect the rego (including any backdating if applicable) which would then allow a WOF inspection process to be actioned.
Surely that is the sequence of events when a period of 'rego on hold' is changed back to full rego, or when an import vehicle is VIN'ed initially?

[Ixion]

Nope. Posters are right. Must have Wof to rego (including taking rego off hold). No need for rego to get a WoF (they never even check it ) .

Only exception is a COMPLETELY deregistered bike, needing re-vin. Then they do both at the same time.

[davereid]

The real problem lies in that a vehicle must be registered in order to be able to get a WOF (or COF). Therefore the unregistered vehicle then also potentially becomes one without a current WOF.

As long as the registration has not lapsed, that is to say it is on hold, or not more than two years overdue, you can get a WOF.

Even if the vehicle has lapsed, a garage would still be able to do a WOF inspection.

The system would not give them an authorisation code to put on the back of the sticker, but you would still have the test sheet demonstrating that you had passed the inspection.

[sleemanj]

I think sme of the confusion people get is because of the term "registration".

To Joe Bloggs "registration" is what you get down the post shop every year or so.

The problem is this is vehicle licenceing, NOT registration.

Registration is your plates, it's what you are after you've got the VIN stuff sorted when putting a vehicle (back) on the road. It's what you have when your vehicle is "in the system". It doesn't run out every year, it "dies" after your vehicle remains unlicenced for a period of time.

You can not renew/extend your vehicle licenceing (which is continuous anyway but that's another debate) unless you have a WOF.

You can not get a WOF unless your vehicle is registered (has active number plates).

When the poster above asked their insurance, I bet the poster was saying "registered" and the insurance person was thinking "this is a dirt bike without plates", when the poster was thinking "this is a bike with live plates that just isn't currently licenced at the moment".

Now ALL this is roughly beside the point anyway, the long and the short of it is... if you have insurance on the vehicle at the time when you come to do a claim, then you claim can't be declined for a matter which is not relevant to the claim, eg somebody runs into the back of you, the insurer can't say "oh, your front left headlight was bust, no claim for you".

And that is the reason this law exists because without it, insurers would write in all sorts of convenient loop holes to contracts, not to mention all the people who would get caught out because they forgot to relicence the car last month or something.

[jono035]

As long as the registration has not lapsed, that is to say it is on hold, or not more than two years overdue, you can get a WOF.

Even if the vehicle has lapsed, a garage would still be able to do a WOF inspection.

The system would not give them an authorisation code to put on the back of the sticker, but you would still have the test sheet demonstrating that you had passed the inspection.

Yeah, and that's the bit the insurance companies care about. When my sisters car failed its warrant on a borked headlight switch the insurance company basically said as long as whatever is wrong doesn't cause the accident, you're covered. Rear brake lights out would mean you may not be covered if rear ended, but if you run up the back of someone else you're fine, that kind of thing.

[Toot Toot]

I think sme of the confusion people get is because of the term "registration".

To Joe Bloggs "registration" is what you get down the post shop every year or so.

The problem is this is vehicle licenceing, NOT registration.

The most interesting and informative post so far, thank you.