Noobie Seeks legal type advice

[Paul in NZ]

My purile reply?
I think you set the tone.
I had read what the chap wrote, but I was responding to your drivel about the insurers response being based on legalities, not fairness. How is that helpful? Your insurance contract is a legal document...how else do you propse they deal with claims?

Yes, you are right, I am in the insurance industry. I mainly deal with corporate types on a day to day basis so don't have much to do with motorcycle claims. What I have done (as you may have noticed in your research), both here and in Kiwi Rider, is attempted to assist with subjects like insurance and finance for the average rider where possible.

So, no - I don't accept your assertion about all insurers are unpleasant and treat you like shit. Judging by your initial post, I'll bet you're only getting a reflection of your own attitude...perhaps it's karma.

Well I'll excuse you because you don't know me and it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. I'm a pretty ordinary citizen! I play fair and I'm always polite unless I'm riled. I have an excellent relationship with my insusrer because I know my rights.

I will agree my comment using the words legalities was a little mis leading. legal nicities (SP) would be a better description. My meaning is that just because something is strictly legal (and that is often an interpretation of a law) does not always make it right and fair.

Contractual law is big on 'intent'. If a strong challenge is mounted to several counter staff decisions I suspect they could be found wanting. Certainly, my recent experiences when I was the blameless victim of someone elses illegal behaviour at the hands of an insurance company was not pleasant. The Judge was far more human! I thought it a one off and dismissed it but when Vicki was treated the same way and quizzed about her 'multiple claims' (2 broken windshields in 12 months - neither our doing - one a truck droped a load of rocks on the cars bonnet nearly taking Vickis head off - and we pay extra for the glass cover for goodness sake)

In this case (the windscreen) the questions we were asked were astonishingly stupid! Do we have a criminal record, have we had any speeding offences, were we drunk, you are obliged to answer these questions etc etc or we will withhold your excess etc etc etc etc (the other party admitted guilt). It was really quite nasty and Vicki was in tears afterwards.

2 years later she lost here glasses and had to report it to them, right in front of her one of the counter staff asked her colleague 'do you know this person?' 'Oh yes! Shes had a few claims' Well yes! As the bloody victim love!

One other time I had to take the other party to court on behalf of the insurer so they could get their money? Again, we were the innocent party! I lost a days pay!

We pay these people for a service. We have been with them nearly 30 years and had one big ish claim (burglery) on the house and Vicki crashed a Mazda 626 (about $5k)..... I tell you, I'm seriously thinking about a change!

That aside, when we talk of fairness you are assuming this person need some sort of rider training? They may have had this training and the anticipation and reaction prevented the actual collision. When we talk of fairness we are talking about a person that would be better off if they had NOT avoided the collision? Thats fair?

Now we will never know the actual facts because we were not actually there and even if we were, we may have jumped to different assumptions. I can assure you though, I am neither rude or arrogant in my business dealings. I do my research though and I know my rights!

Look, I could not give a flat rats arse what you think of me personally, I doubt you would like me at all (obviously). Few do (apart from Vicki) for any length of time! But I still say, if he was at all unsure of what the rights of the situation were, a more assertive and experienced advocate would have been a big help!

Perhaps the truth lies some place between us we should leave it at that eh?

Paul N

[Oscar]

Well I'll excuse you because you don't know me and it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. I'm a pretty ordinary citizen! I play fair and I'm always polite unless I'm riled. I have an excellent relationship with my insusrer because I know my rights.

I will agree my comment using the words legalities was a little mis leading. legal nicities (SP) would be a better description. My meaning is that just because something is strictly legal (and that is often an interpretation of a law) does not always make it right and fair.

Contractual law is big on 'intent'. If a strong challenge is mounted to several counter staff decisions I suspect they could be found wanting. Certainly, my recent experiences when I was the blameless victim of someone elses illegal behaviour at the hands of an insurance company was not pleasant. The Judge was far more human! I thought it a one off and dismissed it but when Vicki was treated the same way and quizzed about her 'multiple claims' (2 broken windshields in 12 months - neither our doing - one a truck droped a load of rocks on the cars bonnet nearly taking Vickis head off - and we pay extra for the glass cover for goodness sake)

In this case (the windscreen) the questions we were asked were astonishingly stupid! Do we have a criminal record, have we had any speeding offences, were we drunk, you are obliged to answer these questions etc etc or we will withhold your excess etc etc etc etc (the other party admitted guilt). It was really quite nasty and Vicki was in tears afterwards.

2 years later she lost here glasses and had to report it to them, right in front of her one of the counter staff asked her colleague 'do you know this person?' 'Oh yes! Shes had a few claims' Well yes! As the bloody victim love!

One other time I had to take the other party to court on behalf of the insurer so they could get their money? Again, we were the innocent party! I lost a days pay!

We pay these people for a service. We have been with them nearly 30 years and had one big ish claim (burglery) on the house and Vicki crashed a Mazda 626 (about $5k)..... I tell you, I'm seriously thinking about a change!

That aside, when we talk of fairness you are assuming this person need some sort of rider training? They may have had this training and the anticipation and reaction prevented the actual collision. When we talk of fairness we are talking about a person that would be better off if they had NOT avoided the collision? Thats fair?

Now we will never know the actual facts because we were not actually there and even if we were, we may have jumped to different assumptions. I can assure you though, I am neither rude or arrogant in my business dealings. I do my research though and I know my rights!

Look, I could not give a flat rats arse what you think of me personally, I doubt you would like me at all (obviously). Few do (apart from Vicki) for any length of time! But I still say, if he was at all unsure of what the rights of the situation were, a more assertive and experienced advocate would have been a big help!

Perhaps the truth lies some place between us we should leave it at that eh?

Paul N

My original comment was to do with your attitude and advice, not this guys' problem. I don't think:

I'm afraid this is typical insurance company shite! They want a nice tidy closure and I'm afraid their rules are based on legalities, not fairness!

..is gonna help the chap, is it?

I actually made perhaps the only valid recommendation in the circumstances - take the car driver to the small claims. In that enviroment he has his best chance of a fair hearing.

In actual fact, his insurer has done (or is doing) what it promised - repairing his bike less the uninsured portion (the excess). They are not obliged to recover from the third party, but will certainly try as it ameliorates their own losses (and as a result sorts out our boy's excess and NCB)- but they need proof. Without a witness, it is his word against the car driver, and what does that give his insurer to use against the car's insurer? Nothing.

As for the rider training, he has a new (entry level) bike, he fell off it...a harsh call, but probably true.

I doubt is your advice vis-a-vis a "..strong attack on counter staff." is going to get him far (other than pissing of the poor droobles involved). I can tell you from experience that where a claim falls into a grey area or is contested, an aggressive attitude from the punter is going to get you nowhere fast.

[Paul in NZ]

My original comment was to do with your attitude and advice, not this guys' problem. I don't think:


I doubt is your advice vis-a-vis a "..strong attack on counter staff." is going to get him far (other than pissing of the poor droobles involved). I can tell you from experience that where a claim falls into a grey area or is contested, an aggressive attitude from the punter is going to get you nowhere fast.

You on drugs Oscar?

Re read your first post mate. It could be tasken as having an aggressive attitude (ok - chime in here folks either way)

I didn't say "..strong attack on counter staff."

I said "Contractual law is big on 'intent'. If a strong challenge is mounted to several counter staff decisions I suspect they could be found wanting"

A strong challenge by a legal representitive in a court on decisions these people have made. I'm not suggesting being aggressive to people in the office but being assertive based on your rights and asking for a full explanation. There is a world of difference!

In the time availiable the car driver could have easily disguised the damage and the company changed it's stance without considering this!

The one thing we do agree on is get the driver into the small claims court and get him to state his story under oath. Mind you, his insurance company will probably be there prompting him?

As for being a learner. Lots of people commute on devices like GN250's. That does lot make them learners any more than being a dirt biker makes you a nature screwing polluter of the environment does it.

Check out his birthdate He aint 16.

Paul N

[spudchucka]

As well as a good lawyer you need better evidence. A witness would be great, video footage even better.

Good luck!

A witness is his only hope really.

[Paul in NZ]

A witness is his only hope really.

I saw it all yer 'oner. It were terrible wiv the grindin and the tearin and all.

[Oscar]

You on drugs Oscar?

Re read your first post mate. It could be tasken as having an aggressive attitude (ok - chime in here folks either way)

I didn't say "..strong attack on counter staff."

I said "Contractual law is big on 'intent'. If a strong challenge is mounted to several counter staff decisions I suspect they could be found wanting"

A strong challenge by a legal representitive in a court on decisions these people have made. I'm not suggesting being aggressive to people in the office but being assertive based on your rights and asking for a full explanation. There is a world of difference!

In the time availiable the car driver could have easily disguised the damage and the company changed it's stance without considering this!

The one thing we do agree on is get the driver into the small claims court and get him to state his story under oath. Mind you, his insurance company will probably be there prompting him?

As for being a learner. Lots of people commute on devices like GN250's. That does lot make them learners any more than being a dirt biker makes you a nature screwing polluter of the environment does it.

Check out his birthdate He aint 16.

Paul N

My drugs obviously ain't as good as yours.
Why would you bother coming on strong to the idiot counter staff at most insurance companies? What are they going to do? They have as much authority as any McDonalds Staff. So you gonna mount a legal challenge over a car v. bike claim? Got a brief on retainer have we?

If you knew as much as thought you'd know that Insurance Company representation at small claims is up to the punter. Additionally if you were as sharp as you think you are I wouldn't have needed to state the bleeding obvious: 16yo+GN250 = Inexperience. I'm not slagging the chap, we were all young and stupid once, and he had the good sense to ask for help.

Contractual law is big on words. If you actually read your policy you'll find out that the insurer is not required to look after "uninsured losses" (i.e. your excess). So basically the recovery of the excess (and his retention of his no claims status), is a side effect of the insurer seeking restitution from an at fault driver. With no proof that the car driver is at fault, what basis have they to proceed? No amount of being "assertive" to counter staff is going to change that...even in your world.

Finally, I don't give a rats arse how my post gets taken - you were the guy who deleted his offering...


Ps. I'll put my LC4 up against a manky old Guzzi in an emissions test any day (although I'd warrant that your emissions are worse than anything your bike could achieve).

[Zapf]

Hi folks.

I've lurked here a few times but only just gotten aroudn to register. Looking for a bit of advice cos I'm a needy bastard like that.

A few weeks before xmas (Dec 16th) I wrote off my lovely new 2004 GN250. Was coming down a straight road, slowing forn for a round-about and some clown pulls out of a shop carpark because he didnt see me. I swerved and missed slamming into him, but still put my bike down and admired the view of the world spinning by as a I kept rolling after the bike dropped. Was only doing 45-50ish thankfully or it could have been worse than a written off bike and 3 fractures in my hand.

Anyways the bloke in the car stopped, checked I was OK, gave me his details, apologised, admitted it was his fault & promised to pay for all the damages. A few people stopped, but left after making sure I was OK.. I was starting to go into shock cos of the shattered hand, and didnt think to get any details off them for witnesses. The bloke in the car gave me his details thou.

It only happened half a km or so from home, so I decided to ride home (that hurt like crap with a broken hand I tell ya) and goto hospital from there. Went to hospital got sorted out, when I got home I rang the cops and the insurance company that night to sort things out with them. I said to both of them I thought I might have just clipped it as I swerved (All the damage to my bike was on the right hand side where it hit the road, apart from a sodding great dent in the left of the gasttank).

Left it with them, didnt hear anything until teh 10th of Jan, got a letter from the insurance company accepting the claim. Next day the cops come around to finally talk to me about it (nearly a bloody month later!), cop says hes looked at the car, theres no damage to it so he doesnt think I hit it. The cop says the guy now says it wasnt his fault at all, and basically says because I said I'd hit him and there wasnt any sign of damage he had to believe the other guy. I'd been told before that in the eyes of the law anyone on a motorbike is automatically at fault, and now I believe it. Anyways a few days later I get another letter from the insurance company, saying on information they've received from the cops the accident didnt involve any other vehicles, and thus my premium goes up , and they wont be seeking any money from the other driver.

I'm starting to feel pretty screwed, but so far I've put ads in the paper (Waikato Times & Hamilton Press) asking for witnesses, stuck some leaflets into the nearby houses, and this morning I stuck a big sign up at the spot of the crash as well. What I'm looking for is advice on three things really.

Can you think of anything else I can do to either find a witness or convince the cops I was in the right?
Does anyone have any experience with the Disputres Tribunual as I'm thinking of trying to get the money out of him that way?
Also whats a good bike insurance company? I'm decidely un-impressed with the Protecta insurance I got with my bike. A $1000 excess on a $3000 bike is not the go.

Feels like I've written half a novell, but if you got this far thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
Andy

Hi Andy, now just to make this clear I am no lawyer. However I have this point of view..

Who wrote down the details? you? or the driver? If its the driver's writing, you could possibly us that as a piece of fact in your favour. Why would a driver that you otherwise didn't hit stop and write down all their details? Now, so if the other driver stopped and gave you their details. Can you assume that there has been an acccident? And you are injured? If you are injured why was it not reported to the police?

Regarding about the damage to the car, could the damage not have been repaired within that 1 month period? or that you forgot where you hit him (due to shock and blaa). these are questions that you should ask the driver, and the cop that questioned it. And if required perhaps in a court of law. I belive you can lay a complain with the police with the cause of YOUR accident, would it not be reasonable that if you are about to hit a solid object that you would try to escape injuary by any means? including jumping off the bike? and could it be possible due to your action you have avoided more seriouse injuary and damage to their car?

All I can say is don't give up until you get to someone who would look at it in your point of view.

Oh and a tip, in any accidents that the other driver is at fault I always get them to write down their details and sign on it saying its their fault.

Cheers
Zapf

[PhilBilly]

Sorry to hear about ya bad luck there.
I was lucky to catch the lady still by my bike when she reversed into it, while it was parked. Now im waiting for her insurance to come through, trouble is that ive run out of bolts to put in my stand bracket so the stand dosent go all the way forward. Oh shit need my indicators fixed before warrant of fittness (left front an rear) on 19th feb aaaaahhhhh Insurance company better hurry up, i aint paying for new ones, had to buy a new clutch handle though.

[scumdog]

If you knew as much as thought you'd know that Insurance Company representation at small claims is up to the punter. Additionally if you were as sharp as you think you are I wouldn't have needed to state the bleeding obvious: 16yo+GN250 = Inexperience. I'm not slagging the chap, we were all young and stupid once, and he had the good sense to ask for help.

Where does the 16 year old come into the picture?

If you are refering to LiazTZ who started this thread then with a birth date in 1978 they ain't 16 years old in my books.

[Oscar]

Where does the 16 year old come into the picture?

If you are refering to LiazTZ who started this thread then with a birth date in 1978 they ain't 16 years old in my books.

Uh oh. Only a decade out...pretty close fer late at night and PUI.

[Paul in NZ]

Ps. I'll put my LC4 up against a manky old Guzzi in an emissions test any day (although I'd warrant that your emissions are worse than anything your bike could achieve).

As usual, grasped the wrong end of the stick Oscar. If you sir are typical of the charming, silver tounged individuals in the insurance industry then it is little wonder the public at large has such a high opinion of your profession.

Paul N

[Oscar]

As usual, grasped the wrong end of the stick Oscar. If you sir are typical of the charming, silver tounged individuals in the insurance industry then it is little wonder the public at large has such a high opinion of your profession.

Paul N

...and you Sir, have managed (again), to contribute nothing.
I would attack your occupation, but being rude to bog cleaners is not my style.

Ps. Fortunately my job doesn't involve contact with the hoi polloi, so their opinion of me or my profession matters not a jot...particularly people of the variety who own every copy of Consumer Magazine (filed by subject, next to their collection of Birkenstock Sandles) going back to 1972, who've never bothered to read the insurnace contract that they paid a lot of money for, but think that the way to get a claim paid quickly is to be "assertive" with the counter staff.

[Paul in NZ]

...and you Sir, have managed (again), to contribute nothing.
I would attack your occupation, but being rude to bog cleaners is not my style.

Ps. Fortunately my job doesn't involve contact with the hoi polloi, so their opinion of me or my profession matters not a jot...particularly people of the variety who own every copy of Consumer Magazine (filed by subject, next to their collection of Birkenstock Sandles) going back to 1972, who've never bothered to read the insurnace contract that they paid a lot of money for, but think that the way to get a claim paid quickly is to be "assertive" with the counter staff.

Well Oscar you are obviously enjoying taunting the hoi polloi immensely.

However we have now managed to drag this down to the personal level and you are quite correct, it is contributing nothing to the site or this thread. I apologize for any personal insults I made, implied or otherwise, I’m not actually like that in real life and I certainly know better than to get involved in this sort of exchange.

While I agree your technical knowledge of the insurance industry is (obviously) better than mine, I feel that your knowledge of people and what makes them work is a little lacking. We should just leave it at that but I do wish you would either quote me more accurately or perhaps I need to be more accurate in my posts.

Still it has not been a waste of time. I have had my eyes opened and reminded of the dangers of public forums.

Paul N

Ps – I’m sure you will like the last word and indeed, you are welcome to it

[Oscar]

Well Oscar you are obviously enjoying taunting the hoi polloi immensely.

However we have now managed to drag this down to the personal level and you are quite correct, it is contributing nothing to the site or this thread. I apologize for any personal insults I made, implied or otherwise, I’m not actually like that in real life and I certainly know better than to get involved in this sort of exchange.

While I agree your technical knowledge of the insurance industry is (obviously) better than mine, I feel that your knowledge of people and what makes them work is a little lacking. We should just leave it at that but I do wish you would either quote me more accurately or perhaps I need to be more accurate in my posts.

Still it has not been a waste of time. I have had my eyes opened and reminded of the dangers of public forums.

Paul N

Ps – I’m sure you will like the last word and indeed, you are welcome to it

Yes, as a matter of fact I would like the last word (for the moment).

Notwithstanding the fact the you struck a raw nerve in your comments about dealing with insurance claims, I'll think you'll find I'm easy enough to get along with in person. It is however a little bit rich for you to point out my quoting inaccuracies after you deleted the offending post.


In respect of the "robust" nature of this discussion, I don't think any lines have been crossed, it is the internet after all. I enjoy a certain amount of give and take - in fact if I were in your shoes I would have been defending your original statement, because the fact is, most claims staff are bastards. My major objection was that pointing out that fact (which is obvious to anyone who ever made a claim) and advocating an assertive approach was not helping Andy.

The fact that his losses are uninsured (i.e. excess and NCB) mean that his approach needs to be direct to the car driver, which leaves the small claims tribunal as almost his only approach -something that I'd be happy to help with (and I have PM'ed to effect).

[Paul in NZ]

Yes, as a matter of fact I would like the last word (for the moment).

Notwithstanding the fact the you struck a raw nerve in your comments about dealing with insurance claims, I'll think you'll find I'm easy enough to get along with in person. It is however a little bit rich for you to point out my quoting inaccuracies after you deleted the offending post.


In respect of the "robust" nature of this discussion, I don't think any lines have been crossed, it is the internet after all. I enjoy a certain amount of give and take - in fact if I were in your shoes I would have been defending your original statement, because the fact is, most claims staff are bastards. My major objection was that pointing out that fact (which is obvious to anyone who ever made a claim) and advocating an assertive approach was not helping Andy.

The fact that his losses are uninsured (i.e. excess and NCB) mean that his approach needs to be direct to the car driver, which leaves the small claims tribunal as almost his only approach -something that I'd be happy to help with (and I have PM'ed to effect).

I didn't delete any posts. I don't think I have the rights to do so.

I wrote the reply in my posting window and edited it in there so I'm not sure which post you are talking about?

Paul N