My insurance company is looking for a loop hole.....Advice please!.

**WINJA** · 10th April 2006, 17:42

my insurance company declined my insurance cause when the car was recovered they saw the mags were 1" bigger than the originals even though they were the same style mags that the vehicle came with from the factory , the dude said to me sorry but you did not declare that modification , i asked why does it matter he said it makes the vehicle more of a target with bigger wheels . i told him what a dick he was then pointed out it was recovered with the whells still on it so it cant of been a contributing factor , secondly i said did you realise its a jap import so you dont really know what fucken wheels it came with , i abused some fuckwits there and finally got my money.
insurance people piss me off , i try to be nice but if it dont go my way im a real cunt .

**madboy** · 10th April 2006, 17:51

I love to see all the slappers on here get all uptight about insurance. No one held a gun to your head and said you must take out insurance. And don't use the "I needed it for the finance" argument, cos no one forced you to finance the bloody bike either! If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

Is it any wonder insurance companies are so tight at paying out? How many people here either have, or know of someone, who has submitted a dodgy insurance claim, or has embellished it? Yeah, there were 75 of my favourite CDs in the glovebox. There was my new ski jacket on the backseat. My laptop, my digitial camera, no that scratch was not there beforehand... What do you mean I must have been pulling a wheelie at 200k when I flipped the bike? No, I was doing 100k over that rise when the front wheel suddenly went skyward!

Do what I do when I apply for insurance. I fax through a copy of the LTNZ printout of my driving history. I don't edit it. I don't blank out those over 5 years. They can see all the really dodgy things I did 10 years ago plus. They can see the bugger all things I've done lately. I don't declare speed camera fines. Mainly because I don't remember. But if I was ever challenged I would say they were not necessarily committed by me, after all, who else share's their cars/bikes with friends and family?

The thing that an insurer will be asking is not about two poxy speed camera fines. They don't give a rats ass about those. But if you didn't tell them that, what else didn't you tell them? That's what they'll be interested in.

If that's all they've got, then there's bugger all they can do about declining your claim. It certainly wouldn't stand the test with the ombudsman who's so pro-insured that the insurer would need a rock solid case before even trying! And you can't go to the ombudsman before all internal dispute resolution avenues are exhausted - which means the company has to decline the claim, and you have to argue with them a bit first.

**WINJA** · 10th April 2006, 17:55

i think you got it wrong , if you think of it as a product , then you can think when they dont pay out under reasonable circumstances then that product if faulty and thats when people bitch and moan

**The Stranger:Me** · 10th April 2006, 18:10

I recently had problems with the insurance on the blackbird. They claimed that I had not accepted their quote.

Their call centre (whilst they don't tell you this) tapes all calls. I suspected as much and asked them to provide a tape of the calls I made that day and gave them the numbers that I called from.

They provided the tape sans the last call and declared that I never made it. Luckily the last 3 calls made to them were from a cell phone and I was able to match the call durations and prove that there was another call. After much argument they found the last call and in the end agreed I did have insurance.

So, perhaps if you know the date and the phone number that you called from perhaps you could ask them to pull a copy to prove the content of the conversation and the fact they said that was ok.

**Suzi Q** · 10th April 2006, 18:55

no they don't - not at my insurance co - speed camera fines are on the car not the driver so it is the registered owner who gets the fine and that is not always going to be the driver

Originally Posted by Oscar

Wrong.
Speed Camera convictions do count.
Goes to driving record/attitude.

**Fishy** · 10th April 2006, 18:57

Originally Posted by 2much

BTW, how did they find out about these 2 tickets?

When I was filling in the claim form I though I'd better get this completely accurate so I called the Police Infringement Bureau for my past history.....all this hassle for just being honest.

**Fishy** · 10th April 2006, 18:59

Thanks heaps everyone for your advice and comments.

I just have to sit and wait for a few days till I can submit the letter to my insurance company from the police to confirm that i am not with holding any information from them and see what happens from there.

I will let you all know how it goes.

**kickingzebra** · 10th April 2006, 19:00

So suzi, you do insurance for under 25 year old, riders with suspension of license, bucketloads of speed camera tickets, failure to pay RUC tickets and all at mates rates?? (less than a grand a year would be good

)

**kickingzebra** · 10th April 2006, 19:01

Keep the faith Fishy!!

**Storm** · 10th April 2006, 20:29

Stick it out mate, its worth the time to get what , after all ,you paid for !!

**Bandit Rider** · 10th April 2006, 22:14

Originally Posted by Oscar

Actually this is what all insurance companies do.
An insurance contract is completed on the principal of "utmost good faith" on both sides. Both parties to the contract most make full disclosure, anything else would require huge investigative resources. Think about it - if insurers checked up on every policy they issued, your premiums would increase by a factor of 10.

Not completely right, utmost good faith (uberriemae fide) applies only to the insured not the insurer - would not have needed the law reform Act otherwise. Insurers were previously happy to require utmost good faith from the insured, and decline claims on the basis of non disclosure that would not have influenced them issuing the policy. Not what I would call utmost good faith.

Agree that there is an obligation to disclose material information (whether asked for or not), but declining on the basis of immaterial stuff is simple dishonesty i.e. taking premiums intending not to honour the obligation accepted for the payment - simple fraud if done by ordinary folks.

The Insurance and Savings Ombudsman (http://www.iombudsman.org.nz/) is there to deal with dishonest/bad practice on the part of insurers. Give them a try if you are having problems.

**Bandit Rider** · 10th April 2006, 22:35

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

Yes. NZ's insurance law has a feature that ANY non disclosure (whether material or not to a claim) means that the claimant has breached their duty thus enabling the insurance co to get out of their side of the deal i.e. pay the claim. They have a whole department of the company dedicated to finding reasons NOT to pay remember (they are called claims adjusters but really, who is fooled by that).

...

Good luck. You might need it.

That is not the law now.

(http://www.legislation.govt.nz)

"INSURANCE LAW REFORM ACT 1977

5.Mis-statements in other contracts of insurance—

(1)A contract of insurance shall not be avoided by reason only of any statement made in any proposal or other document on the faith of which the contract was entered into, reinstated, or renewed by the insurer unless the statement—

(a)Was substantially incorrect; and

(b)Was material.

6.Incorrectness and materiality defined—

(1)For the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of this Act, and notwithstanding any admission, term, condition, stipulation, warranty, or proviso in the application or proposal for insurance or in the life policy or contract of insurance, a statement is substantially incorrect only if the difference between what is stated and what is actually correct would have been considered material by a prudent insurer.

(2)For the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of this Act, and notwithstanding any admission, term, condition, stipulation, warranty, or proviso in the application or proposal for insurance or in the life policy or contract of insurance, a statement is material only if that statement would have influenced the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or in determining whether he would have taken or continued the risk upon substantially the same terms."

The insurance Ombudsman is not likely to have much sympathy with an insurer who attempts to decline on the basis of a couple of minor speed camera fines have been omitted from a basically correct list. Frankly, I think the insurance company would be regarded as seriously delinquent. On the other hand if an an insured did not bother to mention a major insurance claim, they can expect no sympthy either.