Insurance Claim?

Forums › Off topic › Insurance Claim?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813505 8-May-2013 09:29

noc: This whole thread has reminded me why I have Full Insurance on my car. You pay more, but in return, you don't have to deal with people like the OP...... tisk tisk

Well, unfortunately you still do if you don't want to lose your excess and no claims bonus. But at least you can go ahead and get your car fixed in the meantime.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#813538 8-May-2013 10:12

Just be glad the other party only has 3rd party insurance, otherwise they probably would already have got the repairs for $800, and now you (or your insurance company) would have to pay.
This happened to us. My wife backed into a car at an intersection. The only damage was tearing of the plastic bumper (unpainted) where it held the liscence plate on.
I asked them to tell me how much it would be, and then phoned them to remind them again.
When they finally got back to me it they had already had the car repaired, and presented with a bill from their insurance company! The bill had items on it that were very dubious eg 'straightening airconditioning radiator', but what could I do, there was no way to get alternative quotes once it had already been 'repaired'.
So my advice is to satisfy yourself that the 'tiny scratch' can't be repaired easily for the cost of a touchup paint vial and a replacement light from a wreckers. I recently bought both to repair a car before I sold it.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#813583 8-May-2013 11:22

Bee: I saw a hole in the system/law and I'm thinking about taking it - I was wanting someone to confirm or deny that this hole exists... I don't have a definitive answer but 90% sure this hole does exist...

KiwiNZ, I don't think I'm a bad person - If I had $5M I would gladly be generous and give you some if you asked but as I don't always have enough money to put food on the table for my family at the moment, I'm not going to pay for something unless I HAVE to... I think that's pretty reasonable???

It isn't reasonable at all - just because you can't afford to pay to repair the damage that you have caused doesn't mean the other person should pay for the damage that you have caused... They could well be in a worse financial situation that you are - and it comes across here that you don't really care about that...

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#813620 8-May-2013 12:16

I guess that is the problem with NZ these day's
Pricing going up for everything, wage still low and no one really has the "back up" money they need and just find it easier to tick things up (big TV's computers etc).

I myself have a lot of insurance (even for the cat) so i am not stuck with big repair bills if things happen, I also have a bit of money saved however I keep a credit card at a 0 balance for "Oh c**p moments" and I have no money in savings. Sure using the credit card = another debt however I can always make payments on the credit card each month and not hit with 1 big payment.

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#813637 8-May-2013 12:41

SaltyNZ:
noc: This whole thread has reminded me why I have Full Insurance on my car. You pay more, but in return, you don't have to deal with people like the OP...... tisk tisk

Well, unfortunately you still do if you don't want to lose your excess and no claims bonus. But at least you can go ahead and get your car fixed in the meantime.

Most insurance policies don't charge an excess where the other driver is at fault and has been identified.

Some insurance policies also "protect" the no claims bonus so you don't automatically lose it.

SaltyNZ

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813664 8-May-2013 13:24

graemeh:

Most insurance policies don't charge an excess where the other driver is at fault and has been identified.

Some insurance policies also "protect" the no claims bonus so you don't automatically lose it.

They do when the other driver says 'No, I am not at fault, and I won't pay.' Then you still have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal. I've done it twice, with two different insurance companies.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

bagheera

534 posts

Ultimate Geek

#813676 8-May-2013 13:48

SaltyNZ:
graemeh:

Most insurance policies don't charge an excess where the other driver is at fault and has been identified.

Some insurance policies also "protect" the no claims bonus so you don't automatically lose it.

They do when the other driver says 'No, I am not at fault, and I won't pay.' Then you still have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal. I've done it twice, with two different insurance companies.

when i had a tuck hit me from behind and he said it was my fault, AMI said no it was not, fix my car, no excess or no claim bonus lost, no court either, was very surprised.

SaltyNZ

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813677 8-May-2013 13:52

bagheera:
SaltyNZ:
graemeh:

Most insurance policies don't charge an excess where the other driver is at fault and has been identified.

Some insurance policies also "protect" the no claims bonus so you don't automatically lose it.

They do when the other driver says 'No, I am not at fault, and I won't pay.' Then you still have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal. I've done it twice, with two different insurance companies.

when i had a tuck hit me from behind and he said it was my fault, AMI said no it was not, fix my car, no excess or no claim bonus lost, no court either, was very surprised.

Did the other driver have AMI insurance too?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#813679 8-May-2013 13:58

bagheera:
SaltyNZ:
graemeh:

Most insurance policies don't charge an excess where the other driver is at fault and has been identified.

Some insurance policies also "protect" the no claims bonus so you don't automatically lose it.

They do when the other driver says 'No, I am not at fault, and I won't pay.' Then you still have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal. I've done it twice, with two different insurance companies.

when i had a tuck hit me from behind and he said it was my fault, AMI said no it was not, fix my car, no excess or no claim bonus lost, no court either, was very surprised.

Same thing happened with me with Sate. The dude that hit my car said it was my fault. I told state what happened and drew a diagram for them, they fixed my car with no excess.

Bung

6356 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#813680 8-May-2013 13:59

Possibly wouldn't matter, apparently most companies have an agreement not to pursue costs between themselves. The "nock for nock" principle. If it's just joe bloggs then the gloves come off.

SaltyNZ

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813683 8-May-2013 14:01

Bung: Possibly wouldn't matter, apparently most companies have an agreement not to pursue costs between themselves. The "nock for nock" principle. If it's just joe bloggs then the gloves come off.

Some, I think, yeah, but both Vero and NZI have told us we were paying excess etc. unless we took the other person to court, after being reversed into.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Bung

6356 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#813687 8-May-2013 14:08

SaltyNZ:
Bung: Possibly wouldn't matter, apparently most companies have an agreement not to pursue costs between themselves. The "nock for nock" principle. If it's just joe bloggs then the gloves come off.

Some, I think, yeah, but both Vero and NZI have told us we were paying excess etc. unless we took the other person to court, after being reversed into.

That would probably be because the other person wasn't insured or like the OP wouldn't put in a claim.

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#813693 8-May-2013 14:16

Bung: Possibly wouldn't matter, apparently most companies have an agreement not to pursue costs between themselves. The "nock for nock" principle. If it's just joe bloggs then the gloves come off.

I believe that the full repair costs will fall on the insurance company of the party at fault, that company will then recover the excess from their customer.

Bung

6356 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#813706 8-May-2013 14:36

This corresponds with how it was explained to me.

"KNOCK FOR KNOCK
A forbearance agreement between two insurance companies designed to avoid legal action. This arrangement applies to motor vehicle policies and under it each company agrees to pay up to the limits of their respective interests for the damage to the vehicle of their own insured without regard as to who was to blame for the accident. "

SaltyNZ

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813714 8-May-2013 14:56

Bung:
SaltyNZ:
Bung: Possibly wouldn't matter, apparently most companies have an agreement not to pursue costs between themselves. The "nock for nock" principle. If it's just joe bloggs then the gloves come off.

Some, I think, yeah, but both Vero and NZI have told us we were paying excess etc. unless we took the other person to court, after being reversed into.

That would probably be because the other person wasn't insured or like the OP wouldn't put in a claim.

They were insured, they just didn't want to pay their excess.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11