Insurance without WOF

[pzkpfw]

I've seen in previous discussions on KiwiBiker (and taken it on-board as fact) that an insurance company can't refuse a payout on your vehicle just for not being up to WOF standard - if anything, the failure has to be related to the accident.

e.g. someone rear-ends your bike at a stop light: the fact that your chain guard was missing can't be used to reject your claim.

What I'm looking for is some kind of offical "back-up" for this. I think I've seen it in a thread or threads where it's been discussed - a link to the legislation where they talk about "relevance" or something.

Yes - I've tried searching for it myself, failed.

(No - my bike has a WOF and as far as I know it's currently up to standard. This is a more general enquiry.)

Thanks,

[Fast Eddie]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

[nodrog:Me]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

yes
________________

[pzkpfw]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

Your signature needs a "you're".

[sil3nt]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

Insurance will most likely want the bike to be in a locked garage. I couldn't insure my 400 until I had my full licence because I had no locked garage to store it in.

[sleemanj]

What I'm looking for is some kind of offical "back-up" for this. I think I've seen it in a thread or threads where it's been discussed - a link to the legislation where they talk about "relevance" or something.

The relevant legislation is found in the

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11

It's legal speak of course, but this is the gist of it...

11 Certain exclusions forbidden
...
the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.

[Akzle]

NZ legislation will tell you your vehicle MUST be of a warrantable standard to be driven on a road. not only it must be up to the standard, it must have and display evidence of a WOF and evidence of continious licenceing (rego).

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.

it may be a term/clause in your contract that your vehicle must be woffed at all times and/or of warrantable standard, if so, you've signed that and thus are bound by it.

legislation is all crap and insurance companies will do near anything to get out of paying a claim. basically, if you've signed for it, and break the terms of that contract, tough luck to you.

[sleemanj]

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.

Which is lucky that we have the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Your insurer can not point at an expired sticker and say not paying because you didn't get a WOF, the law says that they have to point at something that CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED to the reason for the claim (your bald tyres for example), THEN they can decline.

Insurers don't want to pay claims, so thats why we have this law, to prevent insurers weasling out of claims "on technicalities"

[onearmedbandit]

Work mate of mine caused an accident in his uncomplied vehicle (ie no WoF or rego ever in NZ) and his insurance covered that as it had no relevance. (He was pulling out of an intersection controlled by a give way sign and the sun blinded him temporarily causing him to hit another vehicle)

[Oscar]

NZ legislation will tell you your vehicle MUST be of a warrantable standard to be driven on a road. not only it must be up to the standard, it must have and display evidence of a WOF and evidence of continious licenceing (rego).

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.

it may be a term/clause in your contract that your vehicle must be woffed at all times and/or of warrantable standard, if so, you've signed that and thus are bound by it.

legislation is all crap and insurance companies will do near anything to get out of paying a claim. basically, if you've signed for it, and break the terms of that contract, tough luck to you.

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.

[Zedder]

Which is lucky that we have the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Your insurer can not point at an expired sticker and say not paying because you didn't get a WOF, the law says that they have to point at something that CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED to the reason for the claim (your bald tyres for example), THEN they can decline.

Insurers don't want to pay claims, so thats why we have this law, to prevent insurers weasling out of claims "on technicalities"

Yep, prior to this Act they could do just that.

In fact, the Insurance Council of NZ states on their web site that you shouldn't even assume having a current WoF will protect you. If there's a defect you should have known about and it caused your crash, it can still jeopardise your insurance.

[pzkpfw]

The act (part of): http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/pub...DLM442558.html

And http://www.icnz.org.nz/consumer/motor/tips.php :

Hidden defects that you couldn't be expected to know about will not affect your insurance.

[F5 Dave]

. . . temporarily causing him to hit another vehicle)

So like he bounced off it rather than sticking to it?

[onearmedbandit]

So like he bounced off it rather than sticking to it?

A comma sometimes makes all the difference.

[Akzle]

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.