Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
Well - the insurer MAY relent and approve the claim IF you can prove that the defect did not contribute to, or cause, the crash. Bike doesn't have a rear reflector? That might be all it takes...But you'd still have a fight on your hands.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
In response to Gremlin’s question, our opinion is that having the additional lights won’t cause a claim to be declined, if they had nothing to do with the cause of the crash.
Most insurance contracts include an exclusion for vehicles that are in unroadworthy condition, however the Insurance Law Reform Act (1977) would be on the side of the claimant (you!) in this case. The relevant wording is available here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM442558.html
So if the lights did not cause or contribute to the crash, then we feel that an insurer couldn’t decline the claim based on the lights making the bike unroadworthy.
The Team at Protecta
0800 776 832 www.protectainsurance.co.nz
I did say 'grounds'. I don't doubt that many claims are paid out, when a vehicle does not have a current WOF or when there is a defect present. But there'll also be many which are not.
Some may be approved no questions. Some may be approved after a fight. Some won't. Full stop.
There was a thread put up by someone not too long ago, where they were declined cover after a crash. Their WOF was quite new, yet their insurer insisted front tyre tread was not up to scratch and steadfastly refused to pay out. Despite independent expert opinion that the tyre was fine and that it played no part in the cause of the crash.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
so it is
Well spotted
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
When I bought my van I had the amusing problem where car insurers like state and AA refused to insure for anything less than twice the value of the vehicle! They said they work on an "agreed value", as opposed to "market value", but still refused to "under insure" my vehicle....
Best place to stay in Hawkes Bay here
Nearly all men can stand adversity and hard time, but if you want to test a mans true character, give him power....
YouTube Videos
MY PICTURES
Glad I'm not the only one who had issues. Called them recently to organise cover for the ute (it's in dads name, but he hasn't seen it in about 3 months) and they point blank refused to cover me as a named driver, because im female and under 25. Christ you'd think it was an amazingly rare super-car, not a manual commodore ute. Seriously, Its not even a v8. I do far worse things to my mazda than I do to the whale.
Private broker, 15 minutes, including the visit to value it himself, and its insured for agreed value with a minimal excess for my being under 25.
Really keen to hear if op got the claim through.
Definately not touching this protecta insurance company.
TMF
I pay them a hefty 600$ per year and i got a flat tyre a few weeks ago and in my insurance im coverd for flat tyres ect~ so i ring them and say hey i have a flat tyre can somebody please come and give me a hand, they put me on hold for 20 mins come back and tell me im not in the system after 1 and a half years for paying insurance.
im not quite sure what to think this thread reminded me to ring them i will do it tomorow and tel them what i think of them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks