Crashed My 33 And Insurance Wont Pay?

[Panko]

Ask your dad to pay 7G.

His fault for not stopping you from driving a GTST....

[Dorifta]

unfortunate but interesting thread

But he should be covered if didnt know his car was Unroadworthy

If your car was in an unroadworthy or unsafe condition that contributed to the accident being a condition that was known to and disregarded by you NO

[.:: GimpS-R34 ::.]

HAHAHAHAHA.... HAHAHA.. oh and HAHAHAH

if you necked yourself then you dont have to pay right?

[GTR-N1]

Fact:-

Even an unlicensed person is allowed to own a car.

That unlicensed person can insure the car.

The insurance company will still gladly accept your premium whilst you abide by the fine print in their policy.

But as soon as you with P-plates jump into that car and turn the key, the risk is yours.

Footnote:-

Even if you were not at fault, the other party's insurance company could still try to use a 'dirt file' against you (albeit that their argument might be tenuous).

Insurance companies have a reputation second to none - "none" being at the other end of the dichotomy of course!

[sh@un]

unfortunate but interesting thread

But he should be covered if didnt know his car was Unroadworthy

snowflake's chance in hell

his insurance company will just point out he wasn't by law supposed to be driving, refund him the pro rata'd balance of his premium, and then say smell ya later

end of story

[Beer Baron]

Blitz, please spare us your 'knowledge'... Under the Financial Practises Act the customer does NOT need to know their product, it is the job of the INSURER to ensure the customer does not have an incorrect product. They must know if he is on P's and the vehicle type, knowing the INSURER involved their system would not allow it to be printed and paid for unless they did something dodgey. eg they did not put in the right date of birth or did not list him on the car at all. The fact of the matter is a person shouldn't have to reasonably know if they can or cannot have the insurance policy - that is what the salesperson's job is for.

He is entitled to a full refund of his policy as it is null and void, period. Further he can dispute this with their disputes area and you may find that the Financial Ombudsman would likely rule in HIS favour over the insurer because they incorrectly sold a policy, that is if their internal dispute resolution area does not overturn it. He has the info he needs to cover his behind and sort the stuff out and I pray he stops reading this thread.

even if that is all true, the simple fact that his car had bald, unroadworthy tyres will mean his claim is not paid anyway. at the absolute best he's looking at a refund of all or part of his premium payments, but if you reckon they will pay out his claim I think you're way too optimistic. anyway, like I said if he wants to fight it I would suggest he go and get some actual legal advice. not advice from anonymous users of a forum (me included).

[gotRICE?]

I know hed be farked in NZ with bald tires.

The insurance company will do everything they can to prove they were the cause of the accident.

Not sure how you Aussie do it, but if the tires were "ok" at the last inspection/Warrant of Fittness etc, that generally means they will be 'ok' for at least the duration of the next inspection under normal conditions.

Its pretty hard to make a tire go bald in 6 months unless your doing stupid things. And it pretty general knowledge that fronts wear out alot quicker as they do all the work. Unless.. your doing skids

And people like us, ALWAYS know the condition of their tires.

[sh@un]

The tyres are an irrelevance.

The whole claim is dead in the water on the basis of him not supposed to have been in control of the vehicle on a public road in the first place.

It's the same reason your policy becomes null and void if you're in an accident while DUI- You weren't legally allowed to be in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash.

I don't see why some people on here can't grasp such a simple concept.

[MSTRshenanigans]

c'mon what variables?p-plater,wet conditions and no doubt speed.

Well the scenario, car positions for a very simple starter.

a whole lot of speculation

Insurers don't always win, you would be suprised on claims we've had to pay.

even if that is all true, the simple fact that his car had bald, unroadworthy tyres will mean his claim is not paid anyway. at the absolute best he's looking at a refund of all or part of his premium payments, but if you reckon they will pay out his claim I think you're way too optimistic. anyway, like I said if he wants to fight it I would suggest he go and get some actual legal advice. not advice from anonymous users of a forum (me included).

There is a heavy weighted reason, no wait, a second minor reason why the tyres are not really a factor.

I can give him actual advise if he attempted to provide his documentations.

The tyres are an irrelevance.

The whole claim is dead in the water on the basis of him not supposed to have been in control of the vehicle on a public road in the first place.

It's the same reason your policy becomes null and void if you're in an accident while DUI- You weren't legally allowed to be in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash.

I don't see why some people on here can't grasp such a simple concept.

Did you not even read my post about how an underwriter paid 100k+ a year writes the policy so if he has a certificate of insurance showing he is covered they are legally bound by the financial practises legislation of aust to honour the contract.

Regardless of his legality driving the car, you cannot set up a policy in the name of someone and list them as a driver if they cannot legally drive it, that is misleading and breaks the practises act.

DUI is treated different. Its lawfully and clinically proven you were under the influence.

even if that is all true, the simple fact that his car had bald, unroadworthy tyres will mean his claim is not paid anyway. at the absolute best he's looking at a refund of all or part of his premium payments, but if you reckon they will pay out his claim I think you're way too optimistic. anyway, like I said if he wants to fight it I would suggest he go and get some actual legal advice. not advice from anonymous users of a forum (me included).

Unless you can base your statement on a legal precendent I recommend you stop repeating your mute point

[sh@un]

I'll eat my shirt with the condiment of your choice if this choad ends up getting his (invalid) policy claim honoured by his insurer

[MSTRshenanigans]

Considering I work in complaints resolution and fulfilment the odds aren't good for you.

This kids problem however is that he has not:

1) replied

2) posted his accident description or certificate of insurance

3) is likely just a random troll

[sh@un]

either way, I'm supremely confident I won't be embarking on any shirt-eating escapades

[MSTRshenanigans]

Just like I'm confident you are without clue

[sh@un]

gagf

[JayTay]

Not to be an arse or anything but it's "moot" point not "mute". Implying irrelevent given circumstances, not unable to be heard.

And seriously, If you are powerful/wise enough to get this guy out of paying a measly 7 grand and learning an important life lesson for stupidity, please put your talents to some positive use.

Anyone who can beat insurance companies at their own game should be curing AIDS/Cancer with their clearly superior intellect!

Not a dig at you at all MSTRshenan., just hate people like this P plater example who take risks in cars, then carry on like spoilt brat toddlers when they come unstuck.

[MSTRshenanigans]

Well my goal is to be an underwriter, not far off mind you.

Yeah I've been drinking so spelling is up the shitter =/

It's not even about being powerful, its about knowing the ins and outs of the behind the scenes of a claim and product... I mean your PDS doesn't even contain everything your product is. All I was saying is he has a very good dispute position and coming from the side of the train where you see the stupid stuff sent back by the Ombudsman that we have to pay, this one is a no brainer, the insurer should have checked their own certificate as per process.

Yes stupid kids need to learn a lesson but uninsured accidents can and do ruin young lives. He has learned a lesson and the mistake by both parties won't happen again. For the record though a Motor Vehicle Assessor can't even decline a claim lol.

[gotRICE?]

For the record though a Motor Vehicle Assessor can't even decline a claim lol.

Drink more Spill more secrets.

My insurance broker even said that Insurance companies dont have the right to decline you a new policy insurance based on age/vehicle/past etc etc... but thats another story.

[JSTA33]

me thinks the kid got scared off. makes it hard when everyone brings you, definatly not smart to have a turbz car when you know your not aloud too, and over that spin the wheels.. in the wet.

good luck mate, hope you work it out soon. atleast you dont have a mortgage. hopefully.

[sneki81]

this is ot, but i thought id ask anyway,

could an insurance agent deny a claim because you have illegal mods done,

ie, trimmed reo bar for front mount, boost controller, none adr approved coil overs etc etc.

i mainly mean the kind of mods that get done to nearly modified car even though they are technically illegal.

[GTR-32U]

Well nothing against this kid but he is pretty pissed about the P plate laws banning him from driving a high performance Turbo car...And to Rebel he goes and drives one anyway....Well look what happened, By crashing your car You just demonstrated WHY this law has come into place.