Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

[Grahameeboy]

Most of the ones we deal with.

Now Oscar, be a darling and tell him who do......

[Oscar]

No. Not ciorrect. Read the law Mr Oscar has quoted.



Anyone (including insurance companies) can write clauses and provisions into contracts until their eyes bulge. But NONE OF THAT CAN OVERRIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It's just like the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can put a clause in your sale contracts in print a foot high and written in blood saying the CGA does not apply, and that clause will be completely meaningless and irrelevant. because the LAW has said that any such clause is void.

As, in this case, the statute quoted by Mr Oscar says that any such clause in your policy is void, except insofar as it can be shown that the exclusion was relevant to the claim

Hey, less of the "Mr." OK?
I'm not that old...

[Oscar]

Now Oscar, be a darling and tell him who do......

No....must....tear....away...from......computer... .go.....home...

[NSR-Dan]

No. Not ciorrect. Read the law Mr Oscar has quoted.



Anyone (including insurance companies) can write clauses and provisions into contracts until their eyes bulge. But NONE OF THAT CAN OVERRIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It's just like the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can put a clause in your sale contracts in print a foot high and written in blood saying the CGA does not apply, and that clause will be completely meaningless and irrelevant. because the LAW has said that any such clause is void.

As, in this case, the statute quoted by Mr Oscar says that any such clause in your policy is void, except insofar as it can be shown that the exclusion was relevant to the claim

in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.

[Oscar]

in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.

You should seriously stop now.
If you really do work for an insurance company you should not be making comments like this in a public forum.

[NSR-Dan]

You should seriously stop now.
If you really do work for an insurance company you should not be making comments like this in a public forum.

hey its all policys with most companys. i have worked for state and ami and its all very similar

[Jantar]

in this case if the vehicle is not registrered and a claim arises the cover altogether will be cancelled before the claim would be declined or accepted. and the cancellation would not be in any relation to the claim.

That is the most illogical statement I have ever read, and I would love to see you present that brfore the court. If you receive a claim on a vehicle that is not registered, and then cancel the cover, any court would decide that the cover was cancelled purely to avoid the claim. The insurance company would lose.

[NSR-Dan]

i like how mr oscar always brings up the insurance law reform act regarding claims.

i have never argued against it.
something not related to the claim/accident is irralivent.

something not followed by the policy document which was agreed on when taking the contract, is not related to claim and can be cancelled on the spot before a claim is accepted or declined. breech of contract.

if it says in your contract that the car must be registered and its not and the insurance company finds out through a claim or other purposes then the company can legaly cancell the policy. if the claim was accepted before finding out the car was not registered then the claim will have to payed out the claim but most cases will cancell the policy straight after.

(this is the most commen situation where a policy is cancelled at claims time, and i have been to many court cases which has always been won in the insurance companys favour, so if any one wants argue about the insurance act, this is a court rulling so the act was kept in mind)
if the car comes in to be looked at by an assesor before any claim is accepted, and it comes to the companys attention that the car is modified to hell and the mods were not disclosed to the company the policy would be cancelled before the claim would be accepted. because in the contract (and this is written into every insurance companys policys), and all modificatons must be disclosed to the company. anything not disclosed to an insurance company that may affect the acceptance of cover on a vehicle gives the company the right to impose larger premiums, higher excess or decline cover without refund.

im not trying to make any company such as AA look bad. im simply being honest. if i am making AA seem like a bad compnay to insure with keep this in mind. they are rated one of the best companys to insure with written in the latest consumer magazine. so if it seems so bad to you that must say alot about other companys that were rated lower then AA.

[Jantar]

Ok, so my RE5 currently has the registration on hold while I'm waiting for parts to arrive from overseas. Until those parts arrive, it can't get a wof or be registered. Are you saying that if that bike was stolen tonight that my insuarance company would cancel the policy and that the court would uphold that cancellation?

[NSR-Dan]

That is the most illogical statement I have ever read, and I would love to see you present that brfore the court. If you receive a claim on a vehicle that is not registered, and then cancel the cover, any court would decide that the cover was cancelled purely to avoid the claim. The insurance company would lose.

not really. it could be turned around to say that the client failed to disclose this to keep insurance on the vehicle, and if it was disclosed to the company when registration was cancelled then the policy would of been cancelled at that date.

it really case by case though. if it ran out of registration/WOF like a few days before the claim. I would accept the claim. if it was a few weeks, then I would send an contracted TP investigator to interview the individual to see if the customer was unaware of the vehicle having no warrent. still hard to prove that they didnt know about registration when reminder notices are sent. of the investigator came back saying that the client knew it had ran out.

if the car was stollen for example and the car was undergoing repairs to pass a warrent. i would accept the claim.

if the car had no warrent or rego for over a month then I would cancel the policy


in your case call your insurance company and let them know about it, im sure they will say its ok. and as long as they have something in the notes they wont argue if any claims arise. your contract will state that you have to disclose any changes that may effect cover on the vehicle. they will probably note on your policy that there will be no cover on the bike while being ridden on the road though. but theft should be fine.

[NSR-Dan]

i know isurance policys suck and there every loop in them to get out of alot of things.

your contract will state that every change to the vehicle has to advised, so if you didnt disclose the change, they can uphold that in court. and if you argue that you didnt know then it wall fall back on your neglegence of not reading the policy.

[Ixion]

No. Provided you can show that the lack of registration did not contribute to the loss.

Though Mr NSR_Dan is partially correct , though, I think confused. The provision in Sect 11 appears to relate to a CLAIM.

So long as there is no claim on the table, the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy. To say, in effect, "Oh, you said when you took out the policy that the bike was registered. If we had known it was not , we would not, for arcane reasons know only to us, have agreed to insure it in the first place. Now we have found out it is not, we do not wish to keep insuring it, so, goodbye". But they cannot rely on that to avoid an actual claim.

But, in fact, it occurs to me that companies trying to use this particular weasel clause (sorry, Mr Weasel, nothing personal) are hoist with their own petard.

What we speak of as "registration" is not what the law actually defines as registration. Legally, registration is the process of entering the vehicle on the register, and getting a number plate etc. What we speak of as "rego" or "registration" or "putting the rego on hold" is actually, legally, LICENSING.

So long as a vehicle has a valid number plate it is REGISTERED. Though, if you have not paid the required fee, it may not be LICENSED. So if the rego is on hold it is still registered. Not, I think , what the company envisaged. But tough titty, they do not deserve much consdieration.

[Jantar]

not really. it could be turned around to say that the client failed to disclose this to keep insurance on the vehicle, and if it was disclosed to the company when registration was cancelled then the policy would of been cancelled at that date.....

Utter nonsense. I pay my premiums to keep insurance on the vehicle, the insurance company accepts those premiums. End of story.

Current registration has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of accident, fire or theft. And, as Ixion has already pointed out, New zealand law has already stipulated that if it is not a factor causing the claim then the Insuarance company cannot deny the claim.

I wonder if this thread should be forwarded to Fair Go?

[NSR-Dan]

No. Provided you can show that the lack of registration did not contribute to the loss.

Though Mr NSR_Dan is partially correct , though, I think confused. The provision in Sect 11 appears to relate to a CLAIM.

So long as there is no claim on the table, the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy. To say, in effect, "Oh, you said when you took out the policy that the bike was registered. If we had known it was not , we would not, for arcane reasons know only to us, have agreed to insure it in the first place. Now we have found out it is not, we do not wish to keep insuring it, so, goodbye". But they cannot rely on that to avoid an actual claim.

But, in fact, it occurs to me that companies trying to use this particular weasel clause (sorry, Mr Weasel, nothing personal) are hoist with their own petard.

What we speak of as "registration" is not what the law actually defines as registration. Legally, registration is the process of entering the vehicle on the register, and getting a number plate etc. What we speak of as "rego" or "registration" or "putting the rego on hold" is actually, legally, LICENSING.

So long as a vehicle has a valid number plate it is REGISTERED. Though, if you have not paid the required fee, it may not be LICENSED. So if the rego is on hold it is still registered. Not, I think , what the company envisaged. But tough titty, they do not deserve much consdieration.

yeah i know what your saying. but they will cancell the policy in past tense.

if the registration was on hold but still warrented it would be fine. (in most cases registration on hold there would be no warrent).

it would always be taken to court to cancel the policy at claims time and would always be the courts decision. If i was attending the case i would state that the client was negligent to not advise us of the deregistration and because this is written into the agreement that it is there obligation to, so if we would have known we would of cancelled the policy as of that date so he would not of been insured and we would have no obligation to pay out on a claim now. so because the client has not upheld the agreement between us the insurance company and the client. we are calling a breech of contract and would like the policy to be cancelled as of the date the situtaion on the vehicle changed.

90% of the time the courts would rule in favour of the insurance company and the cancellation would be back dated to the time the change on the vehicle happend and the present claim would be null invoid

[NSR-Dan]

Utter nonsense. I pay my premiums to keep insurance on the vehicle, the insurance company accepts those premiums. End of story.

it is a contract and it does work both ways. insurance company accepts the premiums so you have to accept the policy wordings that they lay down.

have a read of your policy document. they are written by lawers not the underwriters. we come up with the guidelines and have lwaer employed by the company to wrod the documents and contracts etc..

not trying to piss you off or anything. but you do agree to the terms and conditions to the agreement so you have to follow them.

there should be something at the back stating when the company can cancel the policy or refuse the claim. if there is something written in it that you think does not follows the insurance reforms act then write a letter with a reference to the policy wording to the insurance ombudsmen. and it will be changed.