Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

**NSR-Dan** · 14th July 2006, 18:35

Originally Posted by Oscar

This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.

The problem within the insurance industry is the "Knock for Knock" agreement - this is a holdharmless agreement between most insurers (I don't think AA are a member) whereby they only pay for their own insureds damage, notwithstanding who's at fault. Fault is only determined to see who gets to pay uninsured losses (i.e. the excess).

The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

ok.
1. did i say car v bike accidents, no i said accidents in general, and most accidents with bikes involve the bike alone from spills, gravel, throttling on to early in the corner ect. insurance compnays look at all statistics from the police not just from the insurance companys. and its is well knowen driving all vehicles that skill come from experiance ths is general knowledge.

2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.

3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company

4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.

**Oscar** · 14th July 2006, 18:39

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.

No, they can't.
I'll type this very slowly so you can keep up:

Notwithstanding what it says in your policy, the law of the land (various iterations of the Insurance Law Reform Act and the Fair Trading Act) says something different. Now before you go troubling yourself to say something pithy like "Yes, we can..." in reply, read this:

Section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977.

11.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.

I added the emphasis.
Now piss off and stop giving insurance a bad name...

**Oscar** · 14th July 2006, 18:50

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

ok.
1. did i say car v bike accidents, no i said accidents in general, and most accidents with bikes involve the bike alone from spills, gravel, throttling on to early in the corner ect. insurance compnays look at all statistics from the police not just from the insurance companys. and its is well knowen driving all vehicles that skill come from experiance ths is general knowledge.

No you didn't (and frankly I don't now why I'm bothering to argue insurance with a guy who can't spell the word), however most single vehicle claims you list are usually not the subject of claims as they are under the excess.

As for getting stats from the police - would you like to show us some? As far as I am aware the police don't keep those sort of figures.

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.

According to our claims dept, the AA is not a member of the Knock for Knock. Check your facts.

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company

The article was published in Kiwi Rider in 2001 and was written aimed at Joe Average. You are correct however, we don't like insurance companies - they have claims departments full of pedants like you looking for the easy decline.

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.

Insurance Claims Register? QBE and The Whothefuckcares Insurance?
I'm a Broker, Sunshine - I represent the client, and don't give a flying fuck about organisations set up to harass the consumer.

**Ixion** · 14th July 2006, 18:51

Well, that seems clear enough. The insurer cannot avoid liability by an irrelevant exclusian. And very properly so. Thank you for that. I am interested to see the actual statute, there are so many conflicting arguments.

But the eBike thing, you say, is now based in Australia, and maybe Australian law is different (which would not affect a NZ claim though).

**Oscar** · 14th July 2006, 18:53

Originally Posted by Ixion

Well, that seems clear enough. The insurer cannot avoid liability by an irrelevant exclusian. And very properly so. Thank you for that. I am interested to see the actual statute, there are so many conflicting arguments.

But the eBike thing, you say, is now based in Australia, and maybe Australian law is different (which would not affect a NZ claim though).

Always glad to help - it's in here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...t=pal_statutes

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11.

Our young friend might learn summat there, too.

**NSR-Dan** · 14th July 2006, 18:58

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.

**Grahameeboy** · 14th July 2006, 19:02

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

ok.

2. AA does follow the Knock for Knock agreement and its refered to the term "a contributory claim". there is no memberships and was set inplace by the insurance ombudsmen, i would expect some on in insurance to know this.

AA is not in K4K.......................

3. i have read you thread and it doesnt sound like anything i have seen written in insurance process manuals or underwritting guidlines. sounds like 2 people that dont like insurance companies writing something from what they have read in some policy documents and there own bad experiance with a company

Please explain and I will see if I can answer.

4. if you do work in insurance answer this, explain what the ICR is, what its purpose is and the 2 companys that are not members of it.

Insurance Claims Register.....think Tower are one......it is an anti fraud register of claims loaded by member Insurance Co's

.................................

**Oscar** · 14th July 2006, 19:04

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.

Jeez, you don't give up do you?

1. The correction you made was wrong - State is a wholly owned subsidary of IAG.

2. The article was written five years ago, I know work for the main company.

3. We write our own policy wording and insurers accept it. That way our clients don't have to put up with chickenshit policy wordings like yours...

**Oscar** · 14th July 2006, 19:06

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

.................................

I'm pretty sure QBE isn't in it (the ICR).

You guys aren't in the K4K either, are you?

**Grahameeboy** · 14th July 2006, 19:06

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

oh checking your thread i corrected some mistakes you made.

also noticed you work in the finance subsidary of a broker. so technicaly you dont work in the insurance sector. also brokers dont underwrite policy. there job is to find the best insurance companys for ther clients.

You are on dodgy ground considering you have made some mistakes......

**Grahameeboy** · 14th July 2006, 19:07

Originally Posted by Oscar

I'm pretty sure QBE isn't in it (the ICR).

You guys aren't in the K4K either, are you?

M & G are.............

**Grahameeboy** · 14th July 2006, 19:12

Originally Posted by NSR-Dan

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.

Not having a registration is not an exclusion.

You are wrong, the Insurance Law Reform Act says that the claim can only be declined if the 'factor' is a contributory factor / cause of accident.

So if you have an unroadworthy vehicle which does not have WOF or say had a bald tyre and was hit in rear, the claim cannot be declined because it was not causative to accident.

Even 1 bald tyre would be hard to hold up under 'Declinature. If would have to be 2 to be 100% sure