Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

[Jamezo]

Oh ho! I got a call from State today, to inform me of the changes to their motorcycle insurance plans. Apparently cheaper.

I currently pay $56 a year for third party only, and they quoted $138 a year fully comp (!) for my stated $1300 lump. For an 18 year old learner license-holder, that sounded pretty crazy to me!

I asked if this was an initiative in response to the deals from specialist motorbike insurers, and they said that was exactly the case. I'll be inquiring when I get something worth insuring.

[Oscar]

i was implying there is comercial insurance available for race vehicles, the superV8s have insurance on there vehicles other wise if its in a total loss crash they would be out of pocket a few million dollars. i work for motorsport auckland (voluntary) so i know that racers have insurance on vehicles. and most race vehicle insurers are aware of the indemnitys you sign when racing.


the indemnity for you sign on race days is so that you insurance company cant recover costs of other racers and the track.

and all personal lines insurance have exclusions that you vehicle wont be covered while exceeding the nationa NZ speed limit of 100km regardless if you are offroad, on a road or on a race track. and most say your vehicle is not covered on a race track full stop unless you have been given approval by your insurance company first. at AA we wont even insure a car that has a roll cage becuase we see that the car has been built with the intention of being raced.

I think you have "all personal lines" mixed up with "ones I have read".
I've just had a quick look at the Vero, NZI and State policy wordings and I don't see an exclusion specific to any speed limit. If AA has one (and if it does I would caution anyone against insuring a vehicle using a document that perscriptive), it is asking for all sorts of trouble under the Insurance Law Reform Act. Section 19 (IIRC) restricts insurers from declining a claim for a reason that is not directly related to the loss. In this case, they would not be able to decline a claim based soley on the insured's speed, where that speed was not directly related to the accident.

There certainly is, however an exclusion dealing with "preparation for or participation in...speed events.." and I know that if asked, some insurers (ClassicCover/Vero for example) will grant cover for "rider training days" where certain parameters are met.

I would also repeat that you can sign 50 forms before racing and still not contract out of the law of the land. The waiver signed by racers assumes that the track owners and organisers are competent and operating in good faith. Any negligence on their behalf makes and hold harmless agreement so much toilet paper...

[saul]

I am with Classic and have letter saying that they cover Track days for training etc.

The difference is that track days are not race days.

There is a huge difference isn't there?

[Oscar]

The difference is that track days are not race days.

There is a huge difference isn't there?

Is that a Tui Ad?

[NSR-Dan]

I think you have "all personal lines" mixed up with "ones I have read".
I've just had a quick look at the Vero, NZI and State policy wordings and I don't see an exclusion specific to any speed limit. If AA has one (and if it does I would caution anyone against insuring a vehicle using a document that perscriptive), it is asking for all sorts of trouble under the Insurance Law Reform Act. Section 19 (IIRC) restricts insurers from declining a claim for a reason that is not directly related to the loss. In this case, they would not be able to decline a claim based soley on the insured's speed, where that speed was not directly related to the accident.

There certainly is, however an exclusion dealing with "preparation for or participation in...speed events.." and I know that if asked, some insurers (ClassicCover/Vero for example) will grant cover for "rider training days" where certain parameters are met.

I would also repeat that you can sign 50 forms before racing and still not contract out of the law of the land. The waiver signed by racers assumes that the track owners and organisers are competent and operating in good faith. Any negligence on their behalf makes and hold harmless agreement so much toilet paper...

With most accidents that are caused while speeding (it must be prooved) the police come back with a report saying speed was factor in the accident, so under the Law Reform Act an insurance company can choses not to pay a claim. if any car was speeding and has an accident (from what i have seen) is that 99% of the time speeding was a factor and the police will supply a report stating this. if there is no report of the vehicle speeding then yes they cant refuse a claim.

A recent cliam with a friend of mine she was hit buy a tp party vehicle while she was pulling out of a driveway, in most cases it would of been her fault but since the tp was speeding and the police report stated this my friend got off paying for damages to his car. the only downside is her insurace company couldnt recover costs of the tp because have of the accident was her fault. but his insurence company didnt pay for his damages at all, because Insurance policys also have exlusions stating if the the vehicle is being use illegaly there will be no cover. so because exceeding the stated speed limit is deemed illegal there is no cover.

Insurance companys have been cooperating with police for years, and have been asked to no insure if speeding is a main factor.

Rider training days if you look at it closer all call them they are implying rider traning to improve a riders skills for the road. and the certain parameters they will set are usually speed limitations. and if there is a claim they will get the investigators in to see if any limitations set were broken.

[NSR-Dan]

and if you say any road law broken can be classed as illegal. i was meaning ones that can be classed as a criminal offence. main ones being, speeding, dangerous driving and driving under the influence.

[Oscar]

With most accidents that are caused while speeding (it must be prooved) the police come back with a report saying speed was factor in the accident, so under the Law Reform Act an insurance company can choses not to pay a claim. if any car was speeding and has an accident (from what i have seen) is that 99% of the time speeding was a factor and the police will supply a report stating this. if there is no report of the vehicle speeding then yes they cant refuse a claim.

A recent cliam with a friend of mine she was hit buy a tp party vehicle while she was pulling out of a driveway, in most cases it would of been her fault but since the tp was speeding and the police report stated this my friend got off paying for damages to his car. the only downside is her insurace company couldnt recover costs of the tp because have of the accident was her fault. but his insurence company didnt pay for his damages at all, because Insurance policys also have exlusions stating if the the vehicle is being use illegaly there will be no cover. so because exceeding the stated speed limit is deemed illegal there is no cover.

Insurance companys have been cooperating with police for years, and have been asked to no insure if speeding is a main factor.

Rider training days if you look at it closer all call them they are implying rider traning to improve a riders skills for the road. and the certain parameters they will set are usually speed limitations. and if there is a claim they will get the investigators in to see if any limitations set were broken.

A typical insurer response, having mixed up their policy wording with the law of the land...

All I can say is that I'm glad that none of my clients are insured with the AA.

The exclusion dealing with "illegal use" is complete rubbish. You could decline half your claims on the basis of illegality - failure to give way, following too close, etc etc..

[The Pastor]

What I would like to know is this, Why are there conditions where you cannot get insured? eg having no/learner licence and on a big bike? Why don't they just increase the ammount you have to pay?

[Oscar]

What I would like to know is this, Why are there conditions where you cannot get insured? eg having no/learner licence and on a big bike? Why don't they just increase the ammount you have to pay?

You are correct.
Theoretically you can insure anything - you just have to find someone willing to do it (and you have to be prepared to pay the premium). We have Lloyd's Syndicates to do stuff like dat.

[NSR-Dan]

A typical insurer response, having mixed up their policy wording with the law of the land...

All I can say is that I'm glad that none of my clients are insured with the AA.

The exclusion dealing with "illegal use" is complete rubbish. You could decline half your claims on the basis of illegality - failure to give way, following too close, etc etc..

Of course its a typical insurer response, we get trained in the policys and go to court hearings for claims. we know the law written about insurance and every company has the basic fundimentals all companys have illegal use written into there policys its jus worded diff, even aa doesnt have it written like that.

Two biggest reason vehicle claims get declined is for fraud and illegal use of a motor vehicle.Not giving way etc is accidental negligence so of course claims get paid out. only time there refused is if its known negelence like speeding (10km or so over the limit no one cares about), under influence etc.

I love how you say AA is bad, recent consumer report have voted it top side by side with AMI, for having the best policys and payout on claims

You sound like one of those guys that call up every day to bitch and moan cause you have nothing better to do, and have you ever been insured with AA, if not dont bad mouth a company you have never had experience with.

and someone excesive speeding and then has a crash doesnt deserve to paid out anyway, would you want some one who was driving round a corner at 130kmh, cross's the center line and hits an oncoming car and kills the occupants then be paid out for repairs on there car. anyone in there right mind would say no. or how about drunk drivers that kill people everyday. people on p that drive into crouds or houses, think there insurance companys should pay for there cars and third party liability, i dont think so, they go to court and end up paying out of there own pocket.

[NSR-Dan]

oh and of course policies are mixed in with the law of the land. why because its um..................the law you idiot

[The Pastor]

Sounds like mr insuracne is getting a little bit defensive....

[Mr. Peanut]

He's giving his time and knowledge to help people out, he doesn't have to do that.

Keep it constructive....

[NSR-Dan]

Sounds like mr insuracne is getting a little bit defensive....

oh well..... get paid to put up with guys like that at work.

so outside work it gives me a chance to speak my mind

[kickingzebra]

Hey, I appreciate you taking the time!!! The last thing I want to do when I get home from work is work related things, so good on you bro!!
Green bling for the contributor!!