Insurance and licences

[Oscar]

Although it'd be the drunk driver's insurance company who will pay wont it?

If you speed past a cop and crash, then they are no way gonna pay ya. Sure, if somebody is doing something 'more illegal' and cause the crash, then they may be held liable and your insurance company will go to theirs in order to pay ya.

Jeez, make up your mind will you?
One minute you say Insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, now you've got them paying for drunken drivers...

An insurer can not rely on an exclusion where that exclusion is not relevant to the claim. Example - you have a warrant that expired last week and you get hit by a red light runner - can the insurer decline your claim (the policy wording certainly allows them to)?

If you are really "giving specialist legal advice", it might pay to read the relevant legislation.

[Ragingrob]

Jeez, yer grasping at straws now (or grasping at summat).

Your scenario would be incorrect no matter what type of policy it was.
You inferred that the insurer would enter into the contract knowing it wouldn't have to pay out.

There are plenty of instances where contracts are voided by common law. This is one - the various Insurance Law Reform Acts, The Fair Trading Act and The Consumer Guarantees Act all effect insurance contracts.

The concept of Common Average is s good example - it's in a lot of policies, but it is rarely used.

Hmmm well I did make sure to point out in that post that the insurance company would not know that they don't have to pay out, as one can always lie and say yip full license. And it that instance it's fully on you right?

My original post in saying that they would 'gladly' insure you, was not meant to imply full comprehensive insurance if they know it's not possible. I should have added a bit more to it, but I'd thought that almost everyone had made that point already.

I was just adding to the fact that yes they may insure you, but not for when you're riding on the bike, and therefore they wont pay out if you are.

Sorry if ya thought I meant otherwise.

And when you asked for evidence I thought you were implying that you will still be covered when riding outside of your license conditions.



Wow I love misinterpretations on the internet!

[Ragingrob]

Jeez, make up your mind will you?
One minute you say Insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, now you've got them paying for drunken drivers...

An insurer can not rely on an exclusion where that exclusion is not relevant to the claim. Example - you have a warrant that expired last week and you get hit by a red light runner - can the insurer decline your claim (the policy wording certainly allows them to)?

If you are really "giving specialist legal advice", it might pay to read the relevant legislation.

Of course insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, why else do they have contracts?

Yes if a drunk hits you, surely it'll be on their insurance to pay you out?

I thought my "giving specialist legal advice" was clearly a joke.

Don't take everything so seriously!

[Oscar]

Of course insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, why else do they have contracts?

Yes if a drunk hits you, surely it'll be on their insurance to pay you out?

I thought my "giving specialist legal advice" was clearly a joke.

Don't take everything so seriously!

Please try and keep up.

1.Insurers may try to use their contracts to avoid claims, but they're not always right. Consumer protection laws prevent this now.

2. The drunk will void his insurance the minute he steps into his car pissed. Your insurer will pay you and seek compensation directly from the drunk.

3. In my example, the insurance contract would allow the insurer to avoid the claim because you were speeding. It can only do this if your speed contributed to the claim.

As for taking stuff seriously, I work in the industry. How would you like it if I spread disinformation about your job? (although I have to say I really don't know much about toilet cleaning).

KB should be a place where people receive accurate advice...

[Ragingrob]

Please try and keep up.

1.Insurers may try to use their contracts to avoid claims, but they're not always right. Consumer protection laws prevent this now.

Wouldn't they always try to use their contracts to avoid claims, and not always be right? If a customer of yours breached their contract, wouldn't you try to use it against them?

2. The drunk will void his insurance the minute he steps into his car pissed. Your insurer will pay you and seek compensation directly from the drunk.

Gotcha, so in the end it's the drunk who pays you and not your insurance.

3. In my example, the insurance contract would allow the insurer to avoid the claim because you were speeding. It can only do this if your speed contributed to the claim.

Yeah, aren't we already seeing eye to eye on this?

As for taking stuff seriously, I work in the industry. How would you like it if I spread disinformation about your job? (although I have to say I really don't know much about toilet cleaning).

Random abusive cheap shot... Maybe you should take a chill pill. Was I personally attacking you specifically and your job?

Spread all the disinformation about being a student you want. I'll try to get all abusive and win an internet argument that starts from nothing.

KB should be a place where people receive accurate advice...

I still believe my original post to be accurate. You took it your own way. Good for you backing up your industry that endeavors and has succeeded to rip many innocent people off in the past.

Sooo... Once again....

Yes you could be insured (as people have already said, for fire and theft and in private), but you would not be covered in the event of a crash if you were riding without a license.

Do you disagree with my statement or not Oscar? And if you do, please kindly refer the thread starter and answer his question rather than answering it by arguing with your interpretation of someone else's answer

[Slyer]

What the hell are you guys on?

[Oscar]

What the hell are you guys on?

Testosterone.

[Ragingrob]

Testosterone.

Well that's what the shady guy told me the pill was anyway.

[Oscar]

Wouldn't they always try to use their contracts to avoid claims, and not always be right? If a customer of yours breached their contract, wouldn't you try to use it against them?

No.
Not if it was covered by other legislation.

Gotcha, so in the end it's the drunk who pays you and not your insurance.

No.
Your insurer pays you.

Random abusive cheap shot... Maybe you should take a chill pill. Was I personally attacking you specifically and your job?

Spread all the disinformation about being a student you want. I'll try to get all abusive and win an internet argument that starts from nothing.

So this:

Get your mummy to ring insurance and ask if they'll insure you if you're breaking the law.

Is not abusive?

I still believe my original post to be accurate. You took it your own way. Good for you backing up your industry that endeavors and has succeeded to rip many innocent people off in the past.

Your original post inferred that insurers would deliberately insure someone knowing that they wouldn't have to pay. Perhaps you should take some (more) English papers so as to write with more clarity.

Sooo... Once again....

Yes you could be insured (as people have already said, for fire and theft and in private), but you would not be covered in the event of a crash if you were riding without a license.

Do you disagree with my statement or not Oscar? And if you do, please kindly refer the thread starter and answer his question rather than answering it by arguing with your interpretation of someone else's answer

Firstly,licence details are not relevant to a Fire & Theft policy.

Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

[Ragingrob]

Firstly,licence details are not relevant to a Fire & Theft policy.

Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

That is exactly what I've said.

It's not a matter of me inferring, it's a matter of you interpreting.

You've just said yes they will fully insure you, knowing that it wont be insured if you're riding on a public road. Is this not exactly what you've been having a go at me about being wrong?

God!

[Oscar]

That is exactly what I've said.

It's not a matter of me inferring, it's a matter of you interpreting.

You've just said yes they will fully insure you, knowing that it wont be insured if you're riding on a public road. Is this not exactly what you've been having a go at me about being wrong?

God!

Give it up, will you?

You said:

Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

You made a (somewhat stupid) very generalised statement about a complex subject that didn't stand up to scrutiny and has only been explained by your subsequent bleatings.

Don't you have a toilet to clean?

[Ragingrob]

Give it up, will you?

You said:


You made a (somewhat stupid) very generalised statement about a complex subject that didn't stand up to scrutiny and has only been explained by your subsequent bleatings.

Don't you have a toilet to clean?

Answer me this.

Would you, or would you not fully insure a bike with full comprehensive insurance, on the basis that the bike is only covered when off-road, private, or when a fully licensed rider is riding it? Knowing full well that if the original person rides it on a public road then they are not covered?

If you answer is yes (as it should be as that is exactly what you've just said), then well done you've restated my original post of which you've had a big cry over.

If you're answer is no, then you've fully rejected your own statement.

Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

There is your own answer.

Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

Fully agreeing with my statement here.

Or are you somehow gonna disagree with me here because of another one of your interpretations of my statement?

What a waste of time, just to explain to some idiot what one little statement meant. Getting abused several times along the way, just to come to the conclusion that oh, what a surprise, my statement was correct the entire time, unless ya don't read it a retarted way.

Well done Oscar Let the sun continue to shine outta your own ass.

[Oscar]

Answer me this.

Would you, or would you not fully insure a bike with full comprehensive insurance, on the basis that the bike is only covered when off-road, private, or when a fully licensed rider is riding it? Knowing full well that if the original person rides it on a public road then they are not covered?

If you answer is yes (as it should be as that is exactly what you've just said), then well done you've restated my original post of which you've had a big cry over.

If you're answer is no, then you've fully rejected your own statement.



There is your own answer.



Fully agreeing with my statement here.

Or are you somehow gonna disagree with me here because of another one of your interpretations of my statement?

What a waste of time, just to explain to some idiot what one little statement meant. Getting abused several times along the way, just to come to the conclusion that oh, what a surprise, my statement was correct the entire time, unless ya don't read it a retarted way.

Well done Oscar Let the sun continue to shine outta your own ass.

Your statement was open to interpretation because it was nonsense.
It had none of the riders that you subsequently added to it.
Mind you, some of what you added was also incorrect:

Um... Well in all insurance contracts it states that you must be riding to the law and your license conditions. If you aren't, then your insurance will be void.

This is because you are too stupid to accept that your insurance contract doesn't exist in a void - legislation protects the consumer and affects how insurers act.

Stop bleating about how people interpret your fevered dribbling and don't complain about being abused when you start the abuse, little boy.

[Ragingrob]

Your statement was open to interpretation because it was nonsense.
It had none of the riders that you subsequently added to it.
Mind you, some of what you added was also incorrect:

This is because you are too stupid to accept that your insurance contract doesn't exist in a void - legislation protects the consumer and affects how insurers act.

Stop bleating about how people interpret your fevered dribbling and don't complain about being abused when you start the abuse, little boy.

Nonsense? All I said was yes they will take your money and sure, insure you, but you will not be insured if you're involved in a crash. Is that wrong? Please please tell me how this statement is nonsense. JUST because I didn't explain specifically the nature of this position, doesn't mean it is nonsense. Sooo, once again, was my statement false on all accounts? No. Not on any... It would have been if I had specified it wrongly, but no, only you took it wrongly.

Woop dee doo I made a generalisation about insurance contracts. I did not go into detail, and I don't really give a shit. I don't really know why you care so much about a general statement which you interpreted in your own way. Oh yeah I know, cause you're in the industry and therefore an industry expert and therefore you've gotta bestow every single ounce of power you have against a general statement.

Haha, I just find it funny how I made one comment, have said I took your post the wrong way and that I'm sorry for that, yet you feel the need to continue abusing me (what for the fifth time now), to get your "man" fix for the day in the hope that your dick will grow.

I'll give you one thing, you're good at interpreting statements in different ways (allbeit the wrong way), and therefore you must be good at your job in the insurance industry.

Sooo.............. once AGAIN to the threadstarter:

Out of all this rubbish, yes you can read my initial statement as is, you can get insured, but it will likely be void if you bugger up due to your license.

That was all I wanted to say, don't ask me about the specifics, I think Oscar's your go-to man. I recommend Dave at Kiwibike insurance if you want a chat with someone a little less ignorant though.

That's me.

[Oscar]

Nonsense? All I said was yes they will take your money and sure, insure you, but you will not be insured if you're involved in a crash. Is that wrong?

Jeez, you don't give up, do you?

As much as you would like life to be as simple as you, it doesn't work like that.
And to help you understand I'll type this slowly:

In some circumstances, if they issued a comprehensive policy, they would have to pay out regardless of your license status or where you were (including on the road).