Thoughts?

**ynot slow** · 19th March 2010, 21:24

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

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

**R-Soul** · 20th March 2010, 12:30

Originally Posted by Owl

Not true!

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

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

**Owl** · 20th March 2010, 12:35

Oh right through the heart.

**R-Soul** · 20th March 2010, 12:41

Originally Posted by Mully

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

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

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

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

So to summarise:

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

**R-Soul** · 20th March 2010, 14:36

Originally Posted by R Sole

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

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

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

Dimb and dumb..

**R-Soul** · 20th March 2010, 14:47

Originally Posted by Mully

Lucky I checked before I went and slapped him

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Section 11

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

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

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

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

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

**kwaka_crasher** · 20th March 2010, 14:54

Originally Posted by cowboyz

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

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

Originally Posted by nodrog

mow your own lawns you lazy cunt

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

Originally Posted by R Sole

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

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

**R-Soul** · 20th March 2010, 15:24

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

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

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

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

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

I already commented on cowboyz question.

**Owl** · 20th March 2010, 17:13

Originally Posted by R Sole

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

Originally Posted by R Sole

brake the law

Exactly what type of lawyer?

**Coldrider** · 20th March 2010, 18:30

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

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

at what risk level?

**Mully** · 20th March 2010, 19:57

Originally Posted by R Sole

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

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

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

**cowboyz** · 20th March 2010, 22:46

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

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

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

**Mikkel** · 20th March 2010, 22:54

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

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

**cowboyz** · 20th March 2010, 22:57

Again!

FFS!!

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

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

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