Insurance question

[SMOKEU]

I thought about putting the rego of my bike on hold over winter as I'll only be riding it about twice a week, and I rung up my insurance company (NAC) to ask if they will cover me in the event of a crash if the rego is on hold, provided that the WOF is current and that the bike is up to WOF standard. They said they won't cover me unless the bike has a current licence label. Is that a normal policy for insurance companies?

[Genie]

I don't know but if the bike/vehicle has no rego then the bike/vehicle is illegally on the road, ergo there is no insurance as an illegal act is being committed????

[onearmedbandit]

Ring around, most insurance companies will cover you. State paid out on a friends SUV that he rolled despite at the time it and neither rego or even a wof as neither contributed to the accident (ie another vehicle ran a red, he took evasive action, mounted a traffic island and rolled).

[Genie]

Ring around, most insurance companies will cover you. State paid out on a friends SUV that he rolled despite at the time it and neither rego or even a wof as neither contributed to the accident (ie another vehicle ran a red, he took evasive action, mounted a traffic island and rolled).

i'm thinking in this scenerio he was most fortunate. My son was smashed into once on his way to get a new wof for his unrego and un wof vehicle, it was written off but the other fellas insurance said no to paying out as vehicle was illegally on the road....case by case basis. I suppose that with all the acc and insurance bullshit going on they are tightening up there blelts. best we all be legal citizens

[onearmedbandit]

Not as isolated as you'd think. I'm sure there are others here that have had similar stories from memory. Regardless, your best advice is to ring and check first.

[devo]

apart from which,if you havnt paid your rego,effectively you hav"nt paid for your acc cover should you get injured in an accident.
I very much doubt you would do a lot of damage to your bike without doing damage to yourself.Dont ask me how I know.
In a nutshell,wot I"m saying is if you dont rego it,then dont ride it.

[Swoop]

if you havnt paid your rego,effectively you hav,nt paid for your acc cover...

Well, yes you have. On your car. On your trailer. On your #1 bike. On your #2 bike, etc, etc.
We can only use one vehicle at a time, so why are multiples required?

[onearmedbandit]

ACC will only not pay out for an accident they are usually obliged to cover if the actions involved would result in a criminal charge that would've seen you locked up for at least 2 or 3 years.

[devo]

Well, yes you have. On your car. On your trailer. On your #1 bike. On your #2 bike, etc, etc.
We can only use one vehicle at a time, so why are multiples required?

correct,,,if you own multiple vehicles.
not every one does

[Mully]

I thought this had been covered on ACC threads

My understanding (and I'm only a bush lawyer) is that the legislation (Insurance Act) says they can only refuse to pay out if the act or omission was the cause or a contributing factor in the accident. (i.e. no rego can't have caused the accident, but no driver's licence may have been, because you haven't proved to the Gummint that you can control the vehicle).

[SVboy]

I think if your vehicle is in a wof able state you will be covered. So, if your tyres are bald or bulbs are burned out, then you are less likely to succeed in your claim.

[Swoop]

I don't know but if the bike/vehicle has no rego then the bike/vehicle is illegally on the road, ergo there is no insurance as an illegal act is being committed????

I have just phoned my insurer.
Rego has no bearing on the insurance issue. They fully cover the bike AND are advising all bikers to NOT PAY the rego!

Also. A WOF is not required by them.
The bike does have to be up to a warrantable standard though.

[onearmedbandit]

I have just phoned my insurer.
Rego has no bearing on the insurance issue. They fully cover the bike AND are advising all bikers to NOT PAY the rego!

Also. A WOF is not required by them.
The bike does have to be up to a warrantable standard though.

Name and fame man, name and fame.

[Bassmatt]

advising all bikers to NOT PAY the rego!
Sounds like my kind of insurance company.Who you with Swoop?

[imdying]

I thought this had been covered on ACC threads

My understanding (and I'm only a bush lawyer) is that the legislation (Insurance Act) says they can only refuse to pay out if the act or omission was the cause or a contributing factor in the accident. (i.e. no rego can't have caused the accident, but no driver's licence may have been, because you haven't proved to the Gummint that you can control the vehicle).

That is my understanding also; apparently there was indeed a time when they'd weasel out based on this, but since the insurance reform awhatsit (ombusdman?) arrived, they no longer can try that on.