Mick replied:

Truckster, Can't say I blame your Insurance company for refusing your claim after flooding your car. After all it's something that you would have to do deliberately - that is make a conscious decision to enter a body of water of unknown depth. One of the first lessons on any 4wd training course is to walk and check depth before entering water. Anyhow I suggest you shop around and see if you can get cover against negligence/ignorance/carelessness but I think you'll have to pay a high premium to protect yourself from yourself. Which Insurance company knocked you back?
You should have no trouble with the roll over. What was their reply? You didn't actually tell us and again which company? Was the problem that it occurred on an unnamed track? Was there a clause that you are covered on named roads only? I'm quite interested in this one as it is relevant to all 4wdrivers.
Now to your last worry. It may have happened to a bloke at your club but it has not happened to anyone I know including myself. I think there's probably something that he wasn't telling! If he was "telling all" then his lesson is to know his obligations under the contract he has signed with his insurance company. Actually all insurers are now required to give plain English wordings and it is quite easy to spend some time reading through your obligations, and any special conditions or exclusions. After all it's your money that you're spending so it's wise to know what you're getting.
By the way I am fully covered in both of the situations you describe and I am required to notify convictions (not on the spot fines) upon annual renewal of my policy.

Member - Ken replied:

Truckster I agree and concur totally with the point you are making here. (river crossing thing aside)

Anyway this is what I have experienced.

I purchased a 3yr old troopy from Fowles 3yrs ago for $28,000(now 6yrs old), and chucked a bleep load of money at it converting it into a camper with a real go anywhere attitude.

All up including things like pop up camper conversion with full kitchen and storage, dual Bat systems, Aux water-fuel tanks, Disc upgrades,
compressor etc etc., it had around $75,000 in real dollars expended.

On purchase I insured it for the $28,000 base vehicle price with the RACV no worries, however was informed that it was not covered for damage/accidents off of an 'official made road' ( dirt or Bitumen).

After the mega dollar upgrade I rang the RACV to increase the insurance and was told 'no way Jose', try a 4WD insurance specialist. AAMI was virtually the same.

At that time there were only 2 4WD specialist insurers in Melbourne.

Upshot of it all, I had to have it inspected, photographed in minute detail, all alterations logged, all ancillary 'camping & recovery' equipment sighted and logged by a licensed valueer nominated by the insurer. (Cost $100 - $200)

Once that was done an agreed (Not with me) value of $58,000 was arrived at . Don't askme how, but that was it.

Now this is the best bit, the premium went from approx $500 to $1500. and includes anywhere in Australia , offroad, onroad, swimming creek,s rivers,Wallowing in mud and bulldust, parapenting off steep slopes etc etc.

Yes I do subcribe to and pay this amount for reasons that suit my purposes.

As usual in this f ield of endeavour - its an individual choice and decision to make.

Hope it sheds a bit more light on things.

By the way I use OAMPS as there is not too many specialist 4WD insurers out there.

Regards

Ken Robinson

Member - Melissa replied:

As with anything, I think it really is a matter of doing your homework. I have freinds who flooded their deisel troopy whilst 4WDriving in the Blue Mountains. Subsequently it was written off by the insurance co. who paid up no problems.

They were fording a river and were hit by a large branch being pushed along by the current. The branch punctured a hole in their snorkel and killed the engine. Before a recovery could be attempted the troopy was washed away. Anyway, in this case they certainly had a bit of bad luck with the snorkel being busted but on the other hand, obviously it was a risky crossing to attempt in the first place when you consider the combined effects of the strong current and the water level being at least at snorkel height.

To be honest, it surprised me that they didn't have any hassles because as commented on above, the insured party has an obligation to exercise care and not to put their vehicle at undue risk. (Hence the reason most insurance co won't pay up if you're silly enough to leave your keys in the ignition and it gets knicked). Anyway, after quizzing them I learned that they had been long-term customers of the insurance co. concerned, were on a high rating and hadn't had a claim in years so perhaps on balance they got the benefit of the doubt (or maybe just a sympathetic assessor).

:o) MelissaPetrol 4.5L GU Patrol &
Camprite TL8 offroad camper

Rhubarb replied:

Sometimes when your claiming on insurance you have to do a bit of creative writing.

For example an insurance company may not want to cover you if you drive through a river and wreck your vechile (however most should...).

However if you swerved of the road to avoid some stray cattle and ended up in an irrigation channel well that's a very different story.

I'm not condoning lying, but some people pay there insurance for a long time with no claims only to be bent over by there insurance company.

It's more bending the truth.

Rhubarb replied:

Sometimes when your claiming on insurance you have to do a bit of creative writing.

For example an insurance company may not want to cover you if you drive through a river and wreck your vechile (however most should...).

However if you swerved of the road to avoid some stray cattle and ended up in an irrigation channel well that's a very different story.

I'm not condoning lying, but some people pay there insurance for a long time with no claims only to be bent over by there insurance company.

It's more bending the truth.

landie replied:

Simple english policy wording. This has been a great outcome for all policy holders. What you see (read) is what you get, no ambiguity.

The worse thing anyone can do is ask for specifics in writing.

Read any comprehensive policy document from any of the major insurers, they are almost identical, with some minor differentiations.

You'll find they all say you are insured anywhere, provided you are lawfully entitled to be there. Why would you want them to be more specific then that?
Anything more specific could only be to your detriment. If it isn't excluded, it must by reason be included - that is the best part of these documents.

After all, if your claim is knocked back, you'll only need to stand before a judge, with the plainly worded document that states you were covered (assuming you were there lawfully) and you'd find that providing there were no mitigating circumstances you would win. It would never even get to court.

But that isn't to say there shouldn't be a duty of care of behalf of the person taking out the policy.

Something that is often overlooked is that everyone is entitled to make a mistake which may in turn cause an accident. What you need to demonstrate is that it was an accident. Insurance companies will often use "'expert witnesses" , someone that they will rely upon to stand up in court and say that it was a foolish to cross the river that day and which subsequently flooded your vehicle beyond repair.

You need to demonstrate that whilst it may not have been sensible (with the benefit of hindsight) to cross the river on that day, it was none the less an error of judgement, not negligence that caused the accident.

It you can demonstrate that you are a profiicent four wheel driver and it was simply an error of judgement that led to the flooding of the vehicle you will find that even if it gets to court you should win. After all, to err is human that is why insurance companies exist in the first instance. The best way to demonstatre proficency is to participate in club training (or commerical providers) ensuring it is accredited and that you have a record of it. This is one of the best defences against ensuring claims will be met.

My best tip with insurance documents - don't complicate something that is already straight forward!

landie replied:

The one thing that is often overlooked in these insurance discussions is that all parties have a duty of care to each other. The insurer has an obligation to provide the cover that they have said they would, the insured as a responsibility to understand and abide by the policies conditions.

It is important to remember that an underwriter of your risk is providing cover to you, at a price, based on what you have told them. For this they provide you with a contract that details everyone’s obligations.

I suspect that all to often the insured takes the policy, puts it in the bottom drawer and assumes that no matter what happens they will be covered. This is where the duty of care on the part of the insured comes into play.

I think that you will find that most main-stream insurers meet a very high percentage of claims made, probably in the order of at least 90% plus. That hardly suggests that they try and rip off their customers by not meeting reasonable claims.

The types of claims that fall into the not paid are usually those where fraud has been proven or in cases where there has been a blatant disregard to the duty of care or clear breaches of the law.

I’ll use an example that is very relevant to four-wheel drivers. The overloading of vehicles beyond the specifications laid down by car manufacturers is extremely dangerous and has led to many outback accidents, and tragically deaths. Yet it is a frequent occurrence to see overloaded vehicles.

When met with a claim involving the loss of control of a four wheel drive vehicle you can almost bet your last dollar that one of the first things the insurer will look at is was the vehicle operated within the manufacturers specifications and limitations. If it was overweight you can double up your bet that they will most likely refuse your claim, at least initially, on the basis that you were negligent in overloading the vehicle.

You need to ask yourself, is that unreasonable? The manufacturer of the vehicle has said that they don’t think you should load a vehicle above this weight because we can’t guarantee that you will be able to maintain full control of the vehicle. So why should the insurer front up with the cash when you were negligent in putting the vehicle in that situation. This is not to be confused with an event that could be claimed as an accident – no one accidentally overloads a vehicle, it is a deliberate act.

Another example that is often raised is the non-coverage whilst on club trips. Now I think that broadly speaking this is unreasonable for the main part. However, the club I belong to conduct monthly “Tuff” trips. In the club’s own magazine it defines a “Tuff” trip as being extremely difficult with an extremely high probability of vehicle damage.

Now consider an insurance company’s position. If you tell them that that you do this type of trip they at least have the option of declining to cover you for those events, or cover you but with an increase in your excess payment or even with a special excess. But if you don’t tell them and you make a claim that resulted from an accident on one of these trips I suspect your claim will be refused on the basis that you had a reasonable expectation of damage (the club told you that themselves). Therefore you deliberately exposed the vehicle to a possibility of damage, which is contrary to most (if not all) insurance policies

I’m not an advocate for insurance companies. However, I have taken the time to fully understand what I receive in return for my insurance premium. Asking myself the question – how do I give myself the best chance of a claim being met should the need arise for me to make a claim?

No rocket science in this stuff, just common sense.

I’m stepping down from my soapbox now – good luck out there.

Alan H replied:

As an ex insurance underwriter (not vehicle, but the principles are the same) I know that common to all policies there's an element of what's called "good faith". That is, that there is an agreement between the parties that neither is going to do something deliberately to the detriment of the other.
If the insured overloads their vehicle so much that it is uncontrollable, or drives in a manner completely contrary to the road rules, common sense or in the interest of self preservation, and writes it off, why should a company pay out on something which it is impossible to calculate the risk of ?
That's what underwriting is, a calculated risk taking into account known factors and past history. There should be no ambiguity as the company are deemed to be the experts in the matter and the insured is relying to a large extent for correct advice from the company.
As I and others have said before, "If it's not excluded, it's included"!

Member - Bradley replied:

Most insurance policies cover vehicles as long as they are on officially recignised roads or tracks. IE if it is NAMED and not just shown on a parks map you are sweet, of course the DH factor can always be open to interpretation as far as irresponsible behaviour and exceeding the GVM of the vehicle goes. If the vehicle is loaded beyond the GVM stated on the build plate then it is technically unroadworthy and therefore uninsured. Same goes if drivingbleepon bush tracks and have bingle. If you are on a track that is declared open by the Parks dept in charge then you are ok, if you are on a unlisted unofficial track , or a closed track , then both the insurance co. and the parks dept will not be pleased..... and yes all policies require notification of changes in situation (fines etc.) or they can cancel policies at any time. Cheers.Life is short- but there's always time for a yarda.