Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Update on BMW's Insurance Claim

  1. #31
    Join Date
    2nd November 2005 - 07:09
    Bike
    2001 DUCATI 900SS
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand, Ne
    Posts
    4,219
    Okay lets say no convictions at inception but along the way you picked up a few and did not disclose them at renewal.........I doubt the policy is any different to others so if you did not disclose then decision is not unreasonable although it depends on how much it would have affected their decision to renew and/or increase premiums or excess.
    They would have to seek opinions of other Insurer's so you could ask them to do that or simply as for a letter of deadlock...sounds like latter and onto ombudsman may be way to go.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    29th October 2005 - 16:12
    Bike
    Had a 2007 Suzuki C50T Boulevard
    Location
    Orewa
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Lias View Post
    Not the first threat on KB about Swann being a pack of bloodsucking leeches. I'm entirely sure it wont be the last..

    This is the same company that wanted to give me a $2300 excess on a $6000 bike, purely on the grounds of a 4.5 year old assault conviction.



    You assaulted someone when you were 4,1/2...?
    You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
    Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    24th January 2005 - 14:30
    Bike
    A Cage
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by Edbear View Post
    You assaulted someone when you were 4,1/2...?
    Younger.. I got kicked out of montessori at 2-3ish for splitting a kids head open with a spade

    But I meant i got an assault conviction 4 and a hlf years ago :-P
    .

  4. #34
    Join Date
    19th November 2003 - 18:45
    Bike
    KTM 690 DUKE R
    Location
    Auckland - unavoidably...
    Posts
    6,422
    Quote Originally Posted by judecatmad View Post
    Yup, without a doubt. Having just been forced to go through a disputes tribunal process due to being hit recently by an uninsured dickhead going too fast around a blind corner on an unsealed road, I am still totally in favour of compulsory 3rd party insurance.

    Why should WE have to fight to have our excess returned and our no claims reinstated because WE had to claim on OUR insurance simply cos he was either too young and stupid or had a driving record too poor to mean insurance was not financially viable for him?? (we won by the way...yay!)
    This is where the industry is wrong. You employ insurance companies for a service, to protect you in case of an accident.

    Insurance companies have the knowledge and resources to chase people who cause damage to your vehicle, non fault incidents where the other party is known should incur no excess to the policy holder and the insurance company should chase up the excess/money from the person who hit you..........tui anyone.


    The other thing is I had 3rd party on my car got rear ended went to inform them and they gave me the big DONT CARE, ok cool I had to do all the insurance work to get my payout with the other insurance company

    No point having insurance except for theft.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •