Car Insurance Excess

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Car Insurance Excess

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 208936 6-Mar-2017 11:02

Hey guys,

Had someone clipped the back of our car on the motorway on Friday night while changing lanes (the other car changed lanes to go behind us and must have misjudged distances).

Damage is not too bad (scratches to the panel and bumper) but since we were not at fault making an insurance claim was an easy call. We had the other driver's rego number and called the cops to report it since they did not stop (it was on the motorway mind you, just before the bridge so not really the best place to stop)

Now the insurance company is telling us that we must pay the excess ($400 in our case) so that they can recoup their costs. They will then reimburse us if (and only if) the other driver recognises being at fault and signs a document admitting fault. I know there are still honest people out there but I can't help but think that it would be very tempting to simply "lose" that letter from the insurance.

BTW, there is CCTV at that spot so we are pretty sure we (or the insurance company) can obtain a recording of the accident.

I would have thought the insurance company's job was to cover the cost for us and then chase down whoever they need to to recoup their cost

I am asking for other people's opinion on this. We have been paying for a full cover for years and it seems like they are not doing much for us right now as the only way to not be out of pocket over this accident is for the other party to play ball. What do you guys think?

Pretty set on not wanting to pay the excess on this one as clearly the insurance company then has no incentive to chase down the driver. What should we do?

1 | 2

991 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 652

Trusted

# 1730738 6-Mar-2017 11:08

One person supports this post

It will depend entirely on your policy wording.

Having to pay an excess unless you can prove who is at fault is fairly common. I had to make a claim a month back for a similar not at fault not to tail and I was told I would have to pay the excess unless the other party admitted fault or I had a police statement advising the other person was at fault.

As it was minor damage we didn't bother calling the police. Once my insurance company spoke to the driver who admitted fault they waived the excess.

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730751 6-Mar-2017 11:12

Andib:

It will depend entirely on your policy wording.

Having to pay an excess unless you can prove who is at fault is fairly common. I had to make a claim a month back for a similar not at fault not to tail and I was told I would have to pay the excess unless the other party admitted fault or I had a police statement advising the other person was at fault.

As it was minor damage we didn't bother calling the police. Once my insurance company spoke to the driver who admitted fault they waived the excess.

Yeah, I am guessing the policy will state this as well :-(

In that case, we should be able to prove who's at fault without too much concern (CCTV) so good to know that might be an option if we can prove it upfront so we can waive the excess and not have to pay it.

Wheelbarrow01

913 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

Chorus

# 1730752 6-Mar-2017 11:12

Motorway or not, it's an offense to not stop at the scene of an accident/collision. I hope the Police are following that side of it up....

Had they stopped, you'd have the evidence you need to push insurance liability back on them and thus you wouldn't be lumped with the excess.

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730753 6-Mar-2017 11:15

Wheelbarrow01:

Motorway or not, it's an offense to not stop at the scene of an accident/collision. I hope the Police are following that side of it up....

Had they stopped, you'd have the evidence you need to push insurance liability back on them and thus you wouldn't be lumped with the excess.

Police said they wouldn't pursue this and are considering it an insurance matter only...

Hopefully we can prove liability up front (will try and request CCTV footage)

trig42

Banana?
4712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Subscriber

# 1730759 6-Mar-2017 11:25

Good Luck.

I'd be surprised if the Insurance Company chases the other driver up.

You policy would require that you provide a name and phone number for the other party for them to waive it. A Rego is not enough. I'd be surprised if you got CCTV footage as well - I don't think it is there for people to request footage - it is there so they can see traffic flow on the bridge/motorway and react if necessary (not even sure it is recorded?)

Have you had a quote for repairs?

Can you ask the police to provide you insurance company with the other drivers details (or get you insurance company to request them). The Privacy Act will not help you here, no-one will want to tell you the name of the registered owner of that car (and then, you'd still have to prove they were driving it).

Dulouz

640 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

# 1730760 6-Mar-2017 11:28

I'm also going through this at the moment. The other driver is disputing liability. The agent said it might depend on the other drivers insurance as they have what they call a knock for knock agreement where each company pays for their respective clients vehicles.

Amanon

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730762 6-Mar-2017 11:30

trig42:

Good Luck.

I'd be surprised if the Insurance Company chases the other driver up.

You policy would require that you provide a name and phone number for the other party for them to waive it. A Rego is not enough. I'd be surprised if you got CCTV footage as well - I don't think it is there for people to request footage - it is there so they can see traffic flow on the bridge/motorway and react if necessary (not even sure it is recorded?)

Have you had a quote for repairs?

Can you ask the police to provide you insurance company with the other drivers details (or get you insurance company to request them). The Privacy Act will not help you here, no-one will want to tell you the name of the registered owner of that car (and then, you'd still have to prove they were driving it).

Haven't got a quote yet, will take it tomorrow. Police said they had the drivers details and passed them on. Insurance Company has sent the driver a letter. (WTF, a letter!)

Police have confirmed that the CCTV should help and that the insurance company could get access to it.

Honestly, as a matter or principle, I am not expecting to have to pay one cent (even temporarily) on this one. People who can't drive piss me off, especially the ones who hit my car, so I will put up a fight.

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730765 6-Mar-2017 11:30

Dulouz:

I'm also going through this at the moment. The other driver is disputing liability. The agent said it might depend on the other drivers insurance as they have what they call a knock for knock agreement where each company pays for their respective clients vehicles.

Crooks, the lot of them! ;-)

Wonder why we are even paying them...

trig42

Banana?
4712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Subscriber

# 1730772 6-Mar-2017 11:37

gcorgnet:

trig42:

Good Luck.

I'd be surprised if the Insurance Company chases the other driver up.

You policy would require that you provide a name and phone number for the other party for them to waive it. A Rego is not enough. I'd be surprised if you got CCTV footage as well - I don't think it is there for people to request footage - it is there so they can see traffic flow on the bridge/motorway and react if necessary (not even sure it is recorded?)

Have you had a quote for repairs?

Can you ask the police to provide you insurance company with the other drivers details (or get you insurance company to request them). The Privacy Act will not help you here, no-one will want to tell you the name of the registered owner of that car (and then, you'd still have to prove they were driving it).

Haven't got a quote yet, will take it tomorrow. Police said they had the drivers details and passed them on. Insurance Company has sent the driver a letter. (WTF, a letter!)

Police have confirmed that the CCTV should help and that the insurance company could get access to it.

Honestly, as a matter or principle, I am not expecting to have to pay one cent (even temporarily) on this one. People who can't drive piss me off, especially the ones who hit my car, so I will put up a fight.

Oh, good. You have done well.

Not sure why the insurance company are jerking you around - if they have the drivers details, and you were struck in the rear, not sure what else they could want.

Push them hard then. Hope it all works out (it should do) - read your policy and see what information they need - it sounds like you and the police have done everything you could have.

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730775 6-Mar-2017 11:41

trig42:

gcorgnet:

trig42:

Good Luck.

I'd be surprised if the Insurance Company chases the other driver up.

You policy would require that you provide a name and phone number for the other party for them to waive it. A Rego is not enough. I'd be surprised if you got CCTV footage as well - I don't think it is there for people to request footage - it is there so they can see traffic flow on the bridge/motorway and react if necessary (not even sure it is recorded?)

Have you had a quote for repairs?

Can you ask the police to provide you insurance company with the other drivers details (or get you insurance company to request them). The Privacy Act will not help you here, no-one will want to tell you the name of the registered owner of that car (and then, you'd still have to prove they were driving it).

Haven't got a quote yet, will take it tomorrow. Police said they had the drivers details and passed them on. Insurance Company has sent the driver a letter. (WTF, a letter!)

Police have confirmed that the CCTV should help and that the insurance company could get access to it.

Honestly, as a matter or principle, I am not expecting to have to pay one cent (even temporarily) on this one. People who can't drive piss me off, especially the ones who hit my car, so I will put up a fight.

Oh, good. You have done well.

Not sure why the insurance company are jerking you around - if they have the drivers details, and you were struck in the rear, not sure what else they could want.

Push them hard then. Hope it all works out (it should do) - read your policy and see what information they need - it sounds like you and the police have done everything you could have.

Yeah, my thinking as well. I wasn't on the call with the insurance (my wife was) but by the sounds of it the representative on the other end was particularly unhelpful if not downright rude, even going as far as suggesting we should have stopped there and then (5pm on Friday, bottom of the bridge, northbound) to exchange details. Maybe she was having a bad day... Maybe she's just a cow...

networkn

20008 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6091

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1730778 6-Mar-2017 11:47

One person supports this post

I'd be unhappy if a car did a hit and run on me and the cops refused to investigate. I'd be taking that further.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 572
Inactive user

# 1730790 6-Mar-2017 11:58

Insurance companies will always try it on. Record all telephone conversations with them. Quote your policy wording to them - 'waive the excess' is not the same as 'pay first and maybe we'll refund'.

Which company?

networkn:

I'd be unhappy if a car did a hit and run on me and the cops refused to investigate. I'd be taking that further.

They need reminding of the law...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM434540.html?

Xile

111 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 8

# 1730822 6-Mar-2017 12:14

The CCTV footage on the motorway is available to police for investigation purposes (an agreement between NZTA and Police). I don't believe it's available to anyone else, so I don't think your insuarance company will be able to access. It's also only available for five days before it's gone.

The police should be investigating this. Apart from the offence of an unsafe lane change there is the offence of failing to stop and ascertain injury. That is a criminal offence so police should taking it more seriously.

Dulouz

640 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

# 1730825 6-Mar-2017 12:15

5 people support this post

I just purchased a Dash Cam due to my current experience with insurance.

Amanon

gcorgnet

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

Subscriber

# 1730894 6-Mar-2017 13:19

Xile:

The CCTV footage on the motorway is available to police for investigation purposes (an agreement between NZTA and Police). I don't believe it's available to anyone else, so I don't think your insuarance company will be able to access. It's also only available for five days before it's gone.

The police should be investigating this. Apart from the offence of an unsafe lane change there is the offence of failing to stop and ascertain injury. That is a criminal offence so police should taking it more seriously.

Thanks for the heads up regarding the time limit. Sounds like a nice way out for the insurance to let things drag on for long enough until that footage is lost. Then there is no witness/proof and we are SOOL... Will try and push them a bit more today...

1 | 2