Insurance Claim?

Forums › Off topic › Insurance Claim?

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

2325 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 813716 8-May-2013 15:09

throbb:
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.

If you're hit from behind it's never your fault, if it's a chain the car at the back gets the blame.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 813718 8-May-2013 15:20

lxsw20:
If you're hit from behind it's never your fault, if it's a chain the car at the back gets the blame.

I think that's a common misconception.

In most cases its true but there are exceptions.

Eg, a car reversing out of a driveway into oncoming traffic causing you to drive into the back of them.

Hammerer

2052 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 813727 8-May-2013 15:41

lxsw20: If you're hit from behind it's never your fault, if it's a chain the car at the back gets the blame.

You are not usually liable when your vehicle is hit from behind but one exception is where both vehicles are reversing. This is quite common in car parks but at low speed it is often just bumper and panel damage.

I recently started a chain of collisions by rear-ending a car which shunted two others. I was liable for not braking in time. Thankfully nobody got more than cuts and bruises.

.

coldstone

22 posts

Geek

# 813812 8-May-2013 16:48

One reaon insurance will not pay out (can argue not to pay out) is if the other car I hit is not registered in new zealand and is on a new zealand road- Under New Zealand Law (this happened a few years ago and my company-company car refused to pay the other guys insurance) as his car was not registered as such should not have been on a public road- i didnt agree as the fault was mine -but it ended with insurance companies and they will do anything not to pay out

lxsw20

2325 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 813817 8-May-2013 17:06

Sorry you guys above are right, never is a strong word to use ;)

mattwnz

15282 posts

Uber Geek

# 814093 8-May-2013 23:18

lxsw20: If you're hit from behind it's never your fault, if it's a chain the car at the back gets the blame.

I think there is another exception. If you slam on your brakes in a dangerous way, eg. if you didn't have to, then I believe this could be treated as dangerous driving and could be liable. Such as slamming on your brakes when a traffic light turns orange, and it wasn't safe to do so, and you get hit from behind.

itxtme

1702 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 814116 9-May-2013 00:04

One person supports this post

mattwnz:
lxsw20: If you're hit from behind it's never your fault, if it's a chain the car at the back gets the blame.

I think there is another exception. If you slam on your brakes in a dangerous way, eg. if you didn't have to, then I believe this could be treated as dangerous driving and could be liable. Such as slamming on your brakes when a traffic light turns orange, and it wasn't safe to do so, and you get hit from behind.

Nope, you shouldnt be following so close. Your argument is logical but the law is very clear,

What if a ball bounces in your path?
What if a cat runs onto the road?
What if a pedestrian starts across the road?

At the end of the day you were following too close!!

russelo

263 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 814390 9-May-2013 11:28

Here is another scenario:

You were following 2 seconds away from the car in front of you when a car suddenly inserted in between and he has to stop suddenly because the car in front did so.

Is it your fault for hitting the rear of that newly inserted car?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 814400 9-May-2013 11:43

Another possible scenario ...

A car has stopped in a no stopping zone. You realize it too late, hit the brakes and drive into him.

If the car had a valid reason to have stopped (possibly a breakdown), sure its not their fault. But what if it can be proven that the car just stopped for the fun of it. Ie on the Auckland bridge, got out to take a photo.

Also running out of petrol on a motorway is an offense. Is it an offence to break too late?

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 814408 9-May-2013 11:49

Klipspringer: Another possible scenario ...

A car has stopped in a no stopping zone. You realize it too late, hit the brakes and drive into him.

If the car had a valid reason to have stopped (possibly a breakdown), sure its not their fault. But what if it can be proven that the car just stopped for the fun of it. Ie on the Auckland bridge, got out to take a photo.

Also running out of petrol on a motorway is an offense. Is it an offence to break too late?

So you're asking "is it ever not my fault if I crash into a stationary vehicle"?

Really?

If the car flew in from the other side of the road and ended up sideways in front of you then yes it is not your fault you couldn't stop but anything on your side of the road it is up to you to avoid (note: this does not include a car that pulls out in front of you).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 814414 9-May-2013 11:53

graemeh:
Klipspringer: Another possible scenario ...

A car has stopped in a no stopping zone. You realize it too late, hit the brakes and drive into him.

If the car had a valid reason to have stopped (possibly a breakdown), sure its not their fault. But what if it can be proven that the car just stopped for the fun of it. Ie on the Auckland bridge, got out to take a photo.

Also running out of petrol on a motorway is an offense. Is it an offence to break too late?

So you're asking "is it ever not my fault if I crash into a stationary vehicle"?

Really?

If the car flew in from the other side of the road and ended up sideways in front of you then yes it is not your fault you couldn't stop but anything on your side of the road it is up to you to avoid (note: this does not include a car that pulls out in front of you).

In a no stopping zone I would say its possibly debatable especially if it can be proven that the driver of the stationary car was clearly violating the road rules.

Ie. Somebody hitting the brakes on the Auckland bridge, getting out to take pictures. Its an offense to stop on the Auckland bridge? Breaking down is a different story.

bagheera

360 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 814423 9-May-2013 11:59

Klipspringer:
graemeh:
Klipspringer: Another possible scenario ...

A car has stopped in a no stopping zone. You realize it too late, hit the brakes and drive into him.

If the car had a valid reason to have stopped (possibly a breakdown), sure its not their fault. But what if it can be proven that the car just stopped for the fun of it. Ie on the Auckland bridge, got out to take a photo.

Also running out of petrol on a motorway is an offense. Is it an offence to break too late?

So you're asking "is it ever not my fault if I crash into a stationary vehicle"?

Really?

If the car flew in from the other side of the road and ended up sideways in front of you then yes it is not your fault you couldn't stop but anything on your side of the road it is up to you to avoid (note: this does not include a car that pulls out in front of you).

In a no stopping zone I would say its possibly debatable especially if it can be proven that the driver of the stationary car was clearly violating the road rules.

Ie. Somebody hitting the break on the Auckland bridge, getting out to take pictures. Its an offense to stop on the Auckland bridge? Breaking down is a different story.

does not matter - the person my get a ticket from the police, but you still have to pay for the car to be fixed - friend of mine hit someone stop in the fast lane heading south at takapuna on the motorway - came around the corner and found the stop car - goes to court and he end up having to pay for the BMW that he totalled due to failing to stop in time, he also did not have 3rd party.......

Bung

3052 posts

Uber Geek

# 814431 9-May-2013 12:00

As you are the moving vehicle the responsibility for avoiding collision is yours

"(1)A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver."

There is no running into illegally parked car excuse.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 814440 9-May-2013 12:09

Think you guys are right. As the driver of a car its you responsibility to maintain control of the car at all times.

"(1)A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver."

There is no running into illegally parked car excuse.

The above one is also presuming the road is straight.

Bung

3052 posts

Uber Geek

# 814449 9-May-2013 12:34

Why do you think ability to stop doesn't apply to corners?

On a race track there are warning lights or flags advising of danger, on the road it's over to you corners or not.

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