Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Insurance Query

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Jak, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Right so i am around 5months out from getting my (p) for the bike so i am then able to use high powered bikes etc etc.

    (Have been riding for around 2-3yrs so no flamers, so its not like a total newbie straight onto a a high powered bike)

    My query involves if i purchase this new bike and insure it, (say) i have low speed fall will the insurance company still cover me or others involved? (because i don't hold the license needed to ride this bike). I suspect this would happen but thought i might ask.

  2. i.e. Riding something you aren't licensed to ride? Answer is a very simple no. Standard clause on every policy.
  3. No you would be in serious trouble as well if you pranged.
  4. lol. You know I'm an Insurance broker for a living dude? Shoulda asked me the other night!

    Answers in here are correct, No they won't.

    HOWEVER, there is always a story about someone in your scenario who DID get paid out, and this is most likely because their insurer didn't bother to check their license details with Vicroads before making payment.

    Don't risk it. Wait you time like everyone else :)
  5. you may be the broker but i was an investigator for insurance fraud for over 15 years...i can help you out if you do prang it!!!..lol

    However, in saying that, when you take out insurance and you give them the correct details and your licence etc and if they take your money, they cannot refuse your claim.
    as long as you have given them the correct details. You have a duty of disclosure and if you give them the details your set...the insurance company agrees to insure you when they know all the facts.....but why risk it...
    bide your time....rack up miles and experience...time will come and all of the answers above are correct.
  6. You may want to ask yourself this question:

    "Would I pay someone $000's who deliberately breached the terms and conditions of the contract I have with them?"

    If you are as silly as the question asked, then I guess you would.

  7. /close
  8. I've always wondered, what happens if it was a legitimite error in memory etc? i.e. Someone forgot a prang they had 4 years ago and didn't declare it in the "accidents" in last 5 years section etc?
  9. :LOL:

  10. Be careful what you write Moyston, people watch this stuff closely.

    Sorry, but investigator or not, to say they cannot refuse your claim for the reasons provided is incorrect

    No one has to pay anything if the law has been broken.

    A person who is not even old enough to hold a driver/rider license is able to obtain cover for their asset, whether that be a vehicle or a property. So does that mean
    if they hop on their bike and have an accident, they must be covered? Hell no. You are not covered for doing something illegal. Show me the terms and conditions of one contract that shows otherwise. Are they covered if the bike is stolen? Are they covered for storm damage? Of course they are. The contract holder has not broken any laws.

    Is a person who has a suspended license is covered whilst driving their vehicle? Hell no. Why? because they have breached the terms and conditions of their suspended license which does not allow them to operate any vehicle. Show me the terms and conditions of one contract that shows otherwise. Are they covered if the vehicle is stolen? Of course they are. The contract holder has not broken any laws.

    Anyone who has obtained insurance for a vehicle they are not legally able to operate is covered for all insurable events excluding those that occur due to using the vehicle in breach of the law.

    The only scenario's one could be forced to accept the claim would be if it could be proved that the contract holder was specifically provided with false information at the time of purchasing the product that they would be covered if operating the vehicle in breach of the law.

    Alternatively, if under section 22 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (IC Act), the insurer, has not clearly, in writing, informed their client the general nature and effect of the duty of disclosure, including the consequences of non-disclosure, the insurer may not exercise any rights in respect to a non-disclosure unless the non-disclosure
    was fraudulent. Refer to S 22(3).

    Where an insurer has satisfied the requirements of section 22 at or before entering into the original insurance contract, it does not do so again at any other time, that is;
    at or before any subsequent renewal, extension or reinstatement of the contract.

    To convey otherwise, as quoted, is entirely incorrect and serves only to provide others with improper information.
  11. The answer is no.

  12. How many accidents have you had in the last five years that you can't remember them all? :shock:
  13. Well I've always found the "5 or more" a little unusual... You'd think people would give up after a while. Either way, anyone have a serious answer? And no, it has no relation to me personally.

    That said, you can imagine that professional drivers would have quite a few encounters.
  14. The short answer to your questions is: Had the insurer known all the facts at the time of application, would they still have insured you on the same terms and conditions, and for the same premium?

    If the answer is yes, they are probably bound by the ICA to pay the claim. If the answer is no, then good luck getting it paid sunshine! The Financial Ombudsman Service can/should advise you of this if the argument goes this far.

    See Section 28 of the ICA for clarification, exceptions, and other requirements.

    They can however (if they are bound to pay the claim) impose a higher excess or demand a higher premium (among other things) should this scenario occur.

    NOTE: I am answering in regards to duty of disclosure, not riding unlicensed etc. Chef's previous answers are correct regarding riding unlicensed.

    EDIT: An example of this is Insure My Ride, with regards to a loss of license within the previous 5 years. Failure to disclose this, whether deliberately or otherwise, would PROBABLY mean the won’t pay, as they can prove had they known, they wouldn’t have insured you.
  15. Yup, that makes sense. Loss of license, DUI, wrongly licensed vehicle etc would be "major" lack of disclosure and void the policy.

    It seems unlikely that they would have grounds to void insurance on a minor detail lapse however a higher excess etc would seem appropriate.

    It seems that insurers are most interested in license loss, type of license loss or omitting significant events (i.e. say you wrote of 3 vehicles in 5 years).
  16. Question - is there a central claims register?

    What I mean is in the hub bub of life, losing the car for a week for an at fault body repair 4.5 yrs ago is NOT going to stick in your mind. It could be easily forgotten. Does a genuine failure to recollect void disclosure requirements?

    If you've been insured by various mobs in the last 5 years and paperwork filing is poor, you probably can't even recall who you were insured with at the time.

    So the question is, just how investigatable is a persons past insurance history if there's been no total losses?
  17. Thanks rob, this put what my intention was far better.

    I am also intrigued because some people seem to have a lot more trouble and investigations making claims than others. Just read the stories here. Some people have had quite lengthy questionnaires about driving history when making a claim (few stories on NR) whereas some just put the claim through without question. From what I can tell, those with more colourful traffic records seem to have the largest issue.

    I also wonder how much info is shared between insurers.
  18. Moyston would be best to answer this question.
  19. Anyone can answer that question. It's all on public record.

    Refer to privacy laws.

    In addition, each of them have a privacy policy/customer charter (or whatever other name they use) available for you and every other person to review
    which specifically states what information is held and what is or can be provided to third parties.

    Third parties include: other insurers, their solicitors, investigators, law enforcement agencies, insurance reference centre, relevant government authorities,
    research organisations & finance companies.

    Anyone can request a copy of what information is held on them. Last but not least, if the request is denied and cannot be resolved, you may refer your
    complaint to the federal Privacy Commissioner by phone 1300 363 992 or email privacy@privacy.gov.au