Insurance fraud

who said he was driving a hire car - the OP implied he was given a hire car after the incident and will have to pay its cost back.

My bad there garrycol - misread it.

No worries - just wondering though why not claim the accident where it happened - maybe it was his cop car and was not supposed to be where he was.

ok here is the charge

dishonestly otabtaining financial advantage by deception

he pleaded not guilty and new court December 17

Hi Landy

Not sure I would agree about the "black and white" bit - every insurance company will try their best to get out of a claim if they can - or reduce their liability. "Assessors" and "Loss Adjustors" are really "risk minimisers" for insurance companies, and should be treated in the same way. Case in point - guy drives across a creek on the way to Cape York and drowns the vehicle (Range Rover actually). No snorkel. Insurance company refuses to pay initially due to the "Duty of care" or as mentioned before "deliberate damage". Not sure of the outcome there as he was waiting to go home on the next plane. But it will be a bleep fight.

I think we can all safely assume that unless we are doing the right thing with the right equipment, insurance companies will question you...hence the "grey". If in doubt - you need to ask the insurance company for a written confirmation (via email) that you are covered for where you want to go...get the consultants name and contact number and make some notes in your diary about your discussion on the day.

That's my rant anyway! :)

Yes i see what you mean it is in the interpretation

I had a situation on the road along the railway line just out of town part of the road gave way into a old dam as i was driving past I rang RAA no cover pay for tow your self

next day we went back to the road took a number of pictures and explained what happened and emailed all that to RAA manager after looking at the information he said I was covered

so even if you are not covered in some circumstances it is best to ask some one a little higher up the chain of command and ask

thanks for your replys

Hi Chris

For sure, insurance companies have the right to question any claim, but what is black and white is the policy exclusions, and if it isn’t excluded, it is included by default.

If poor judgement and duty of care was worded into a policy insurance companies would go out of business tomorrow, nobody would take one out if it was that easy for them to refuse a claim.

The instance you cite may indicate the driver had poor judgement and that lead to an accidental “drowning” of the vehicle, but that doesn’t mean the insurance company can reject the claim on those grounds.

Unless the policy prohibits the crossing of creeks, and I would be surprised to find a comprehensive policy that does, then I can’t see any reason this person is not covered. Comprehensive insurance is specifically to cover accidental damage.

The reason there is a clear and concise PDS accompanying an insurance policy is so it sets out in full detail the obligations and responsibilities of all parties. Insurance companies don’t get to pick and choose what they may or may not pay out on after the event. Unless of course it potentially falls into one of the following categories, and these are the most common reasons insurance companies do not pay out.

Non disclosure – You didn’t disclose all the information required prior to buying policy

Exclusion clauses – The policy doesn’t cover the loss (policy must state this)

Fraud – An obvious one

Policy cancelled – Premium not paid etc, or the insurer cancelled policy under advice to you

And a word on exclusion clauses, the insurer must demonstrate that the exclusion clause is relevant to the claim...

Perhaps it my significant mistrust of insurance companies that is the real issue here! :) We haven't had the misfortune to make too many claims - but I have heard horror stories. FYI - I also hate banks...with a passion.

Chris

Perhaps it my significant mistrust of insurance companies that is the real issue here! :)
that is a problem that should be addressed they hold the power of a yes or no for any claim

that is good too hear thank you

I can also give QBE a tick. We have QBE cover on our camper trailer and on a recent trip in WA we sustained major suspension damage and QBE covered the full repairs immediately and without hesitation. Kevin

it is comforting to know there are some good insurance company's out there

thank you

But do you also have the funds to cover that $1m Bughatti Veyron that you might run into one day.

Yes it's an interesting equation that one and with rising premiums for some insurance always worth some consideration. Makes new insurance initially quite expensive if you ever decide to take it on though.

Presumably you have TPP? I've just recently dropped comprehensive because the cost/value ratio on my 15 year old Jack is now basically unviable but I do carry TPP++. That means essentially I am not covered for self-inflicted damage, nor theft of contents. But I am covered to a limited amount if hit by an uninsured motorist and for a larger amount for fire damage and if my vehicle is stolen and/or damaged.

Horses for courses.

Now here is the thing about car insurance, the best outcome is that you never claim on your policy, after all you are only claiming if something goes wrong, right?

Self-insuring is always an option, but the problem is you will never be able to put enough away to cover your liability in the event of a major accident. And it may not involve another vehicle, it might be property damage, it could be anything. Insurance companies get an enormous spread of risk because of the large client base and the number of people they insure, something you don’t get when self-insuring.

Interestingly, not even insurance companies will bear all the risk that they cover, they in turn also cover a lot of the risk they are exposed to by entering into re-insurance agreements from re-insurers.

Why?

Simply, to spread the risk...

the kid who hit us it was his dad who owned the business.

Assuming your vehicle in legally registered, CTPI covers personal injury to third parties - passengers and/or others you may injure. "Property" damage is where comprehensive, TPP and similar insurances come into play. TPP should probably also be compulsory.

is legally registered

Condoning a Police Officer's actions in making a false declaration is a slippery slope for society to be on, let’s not put them above the law...

Who said I condoned it? I said insurance companies policies encourage that type of behaviour. People who do that sort of thing get caught by their own stupidity eventually. People in all walks of life break the law including Police and Magistrates, gaols are full of them.

Anyone who claims something they're not entitled to, legally or ethically but particularly the former, is committing theft, whether it involves insurance, govt payments, etc. Apart from the obvious dishonesty involved it doesn't just cost the company it costs us all. We don't know the "dobber's" motive but if indeed his information is accurate then his action should be applauded not derided. Surely you'd want someone who saw thieves making off with your caravan spare tyre to report them to police? Fraud and theft deserve to be exposed wherever they occur.