I had a chat today with someone who works at an insurance company. My best summary would be - watch this space.

Glad to see something sensible from the judge on this one.

richms:

 

Glad to see something sensible from the judge on this one.

 

Will you still feel the same way at renewal time?

In case people missed it, the court case itself was linked and discussed a few days before the Stuff story. Actually I wonder if the Stuff journalist came across it from here. Something similar has happened before. 

Since this was a test case (as per lawyers for both parties), I'm assuming that lawyers for the insurers have been going over it carefully to decide if they have grounds to appeal. For a complicated case like this, I'm guessing that they will find something and so it's probably not finished yet. Although in the mean time, the effects on premiums etc are going to come into play. 

I was involved in a car crash the other week. Someone rear-ended me on the motorway - he was definitely 'at-fault.' 

Thankfully, he had third-party and submitted a claim. I submitted a claim with my insurance and got my excess waived as the at-fault driver submitted a claim so my insurance company is recovering costs from the at-fault's insurance company.

Now - my car needs to go into the workshop for a couple of days/weeks and I need a car to go to/from work...

I rang my insurance company today and asked what my options were regarding rental cars as I'm the victim (I don't have rental car policy with my insurance).

They weren't very helpful... they said I could rent a car from a normal rental company and try to get costs covered by at-fault insurance. However, he said I won't be likely reimbursed the full amount.... Also, I don't like the fact I have to pay up-front fully and then try get reimbursed at a later date. This seems such a hassle for the crash victim....

Should I call at-fault insurance company directly and ask for a rental? If they say no... I'm inclined to say that I'll proceed to use a service like Right2Drive and see if they budge... apparently, this tactic has worked previously for some people...

How have you guys approached this? Are there any legal rights that I have? According to that article and what the Judge said, it should be my right to have a rental vehicle...... Should I just use Right2Drive? 

Please help...

hojoonsung:

 

I rang my insurance company today and asked what my options were regarding rental cars as I'm the victim (I don't have rental car policy with my insurance).

 

They weren't very helpful... they said I could rent a car from a normal rental company and try to get costs covered by at-fault insurance. However, he said I won't be likely reimbursed the full amount.... Also, I don't like the fact I have to pay up-front fully and then try get reimbursed at a later date. This seems such a hassle for the crash victim....

 

Should I call at-fault insurance company directly and ask for a rental? If they say no... I'm inclined to say that I'll proceed to use a service like Right2Drive and see if they budge... apparently, this tactic has worked previously for some people...

 

How have you guys approached this? Are there any legal rights that I have? According to that article and what the Judge said, it should be my right to have a rental vehicle...... Should I just use Right2Drive? 

 

Do what you want. The risks have been well covered in this thread.

You sound like someone who gets bloshy when they don't get their every whim.

You are not a "victim". It was a car accident. It could just as likely been you at fault.

So to everyone on this page who has doubted the authenticity and legality of Right 2 Drive - They just won a very important court case here in NZ1 Essentially establishing now that if the at fault party are proven to be 100% at fault and have not gone out of their way to help the not at fault party be inconvenienced, then they are now in fact liable to pay any credit hire accident replacement vehicles costs in NZ. They took Frucor who we all know is a huge company to court along with AA & IAG and have won. This result happened last week. This is the second victory in two years now. The first was last year which established that all costs and business model set up by Right 2 Drive are totally legal and well within reason. This victory last year was in the High court so all IAG & AA can do is appeal the costs but not the model.

Same with this recent court case - they can only appeal the pay out but not the principle of the idea of Credit hire. Any questions on this please ask :)

Glorynz: Hi there,

I was wondering if anything one might be able to advise me of what I should do.

A couple of years ago, someone backed into the side of my van causing considerable damage and drove off without leaving a note. Turns out the shop it was outside had footage of the whole thing and the idiot lived next door!

Anyway, I approached them and managed to get insurance details, had my claim accepted and took the van in for repair. The shop offered me this Right 2 Drive package. Seemed legit, they told me there was nothing to do or pay since I wasn’t at fault.

Two years later, I have just received an email from Right 2 Drive asking for all sorts of details regarding the incident because my insurance company are refusing to pay them.

I’m really hesitant to engage with right 2 drive about all of this incase it opens up a can of worms and somehow I’m made to pay for all of this.

My question is, would it be advisable to cooperate with right 2 drive? I’m worried I’m going to have to get lawyers involved and all sorts. I’m really annoyed that I’ve been dragged into this considering right to drive told me at the time it was no dramas, that I didn’t have to do anything or pay anything and that they would sort it all out.

Any advise you would have for me would be greatly appreciated

Did they tell you what they were going to use the information for? My guess is they simply want to re-establish that you were non-at-fault party so that they can claim the money from the at-fault party's insurer.

I would be great if you could provide an update:)

I am currently in a similar situation. A friend of mine hit my car on my driveway, I just wanted to ensure my friend won't be liable for the costs personally. From the readings I have done so far, it seems right2drive would only go after the insurers.

quebec: Just got hit from the back on the motorway and I know it’s not easy to get courtesy car these days. Bit of a wait with good panel beaters.

My experience with panelbeaters recently is that a courtesy car is easy to get.

frankv:

 

quebec: Just got hit from the back on the motorway and I know it’s not easy to get courtesy car these days. Bit of a wait with good panel beaters.

 

My experience with panelbeaters recently is that a courtesy car is easy to get.

 

 

 

My car(s) has been rear-ended three times in the past 6 months (I know, it is just so unlucky)......

Courtesy car often means longer waiting time and a lot panelbeaters don't provide courtesy car any more, especially the more premium ones which tend to recommend right2drive anyway.

Hi All - was reviewing with interest for an acquaintance and noticed there was no authoritative update on this topic post the Court of Appear ruling earlier in 2020.

The High court and 2020 Court of Appeal decision and arguments can be found at the following link;

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/frucor-beverages-limited-harry-wang-and-hayley-skarratt-v-ilan-blumberg-peter-boardman-and-rachel-mackay-

There is a reasonable synopsis in plain language on the following legal firm website.

https://www.minterellison.co.nz/our-view/key-case-for-motor-vehicle-insurers

Overall I agree with many commentators, it does not "smell" right.....but  legally it appears sound.