You think your insured

Submitted: Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:09
ThreadID: 7553 Views:2191 Replies:9 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
ASk your insurance company.
If my car is flooded crossing a creek am I covered, would you put that in writing, on letterhead with my rego and policy number

If I roll my car on a track with no track name on the track, am I covered, would you put that in writing, on letterhead with my rego and policy number.

Just on another sideline.

Bloke stood up at club meeting last night, and stated the fact that his kid had a speeding fine (several weeks or so before a crash, but months after taking out the policy) that they hadnt told the insurance co about , their insurance was scrapped, $5000+ was the resulting bill for his car...

So if you get any fines, tell the insurance company that day!
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Mick - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:47

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:47
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.
AnswerID: 32585

Follow Up By: Member - Peter [SA] - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:56

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:56
Mick, You could be crossing a water covered causeway of a known and checked depth with a solid cement top and get washed off the edge or just drive off of the edge, not too hard to do I would imagine and not deliberate either. Cheers Peter
0
FollowupID: 23292

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:18

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:18
Mick.
Read peters reply.

I havent been knocked back by any insurance company at all. It was a question for others to ask to see what answers they get from their insurance companies that was put in our club magazine..

Just cause some are scared of water doesnt mean anything about negligence/ignorance/carelessness, does it?

Ive done a few driver training courses, so I know about that crud, but sometimes things happen, water rises without apparent reason, did you realise that? Snow melt down river, river blockage up river clearing etc...

What happens if your half way through a recovery of a car while its in the water, due to getting stuck in soft sand, water rises rapidly, gets washed away? Nobodys fault, just a freak thing that happens. Causeway issues, theres lots of them.

I could make another 50 scenarios that would prove what Im sayin but most others got the idea.
0
FollowupID: 23297

Reply By: Member - Ken - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:13

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:13
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

AnswerID: 32589

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:25

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:25
Aint it amazing how you cant get your car insured for what YOU have sunk into it anymore. BIG difference in $58k and $75k!

Not suprising how the governments lick the arses of insurance companies, putting caps on payouts, and nothing is in our favor at all..
0
FollowupID: 23298

Follow Up By: the shed guy - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:35

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:35
You have to pay for the privilidge of cover over and above "ordinary" cover, and this is set by a % of the payout cost normally, anyone who expects the cheapest companies like RACV, NRMA,AAMI etc to take extra risk for the cheaper premium, in the words of Michael Keaton "tell him he's dreamin"

Brokers are another option, but ussually wont do just cars, but can handle all your insurance also.
0
FollowupID: 23328

Follow Up By: Mick - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:47

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:47
It was not at all smart to spend $75,000.00 on a $28,000.00 vehicle and even less smart to not check out the insurance situation before doing it. Do you realise that you now have a 6 year old troopy that owes you $103,000.00? That's just absurd! Did you really spend that much money? The things you listed shouldn't have cost anything like that amount .... I think someone saw you coming Ken!
0
FollowupID: 23335

Follow Up By: Member - Ken - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:05

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:05
Dear Michael

How remiss of me not to explain things in language that you can understand.

However I will make an attempt at it.

(1) I answered the question asked - is there really a difference between on and off road insurance premiums. Yes there is.

(2) How do I know. The experience I went through as described in the thread is self explanatory, or at least I thought so.

(3) The $75,000 includes the $28,000 purchase price of troopy , dumbo.

(4) Just as an aside, It is now a 'winnebago' in a troopy with a full Shiralee Pop top conversion, and fuly fitted kitchen, storage, built in fridge etc etc etc just how I like it and wanted it. I also had a 3mm Surgical Stainless steel 200litre water tank purpose built and fitted underneath. Why? because I wanted it. Are you getting the drift yet.

(5) Just for your information I intend adding a full blown Solar setup for it as well in the near future. Why? because I want to.

(6) Oh! and I did forget to mention that I had a Turbo and matched exhaust fitted as well. Why? Even you should be on the ball now.

(6) The insurance premium includes all the recovery gear of which there is heaps plus other listed items inide the troopy.

(7) Now I hope that puts your mind to rest as to what I am doing with MY troopy. If I told you what else I have done to it you would have sleepless nights and/or throw up worrying about.

Now have a nice day, and keep your thoughts relevant to the discussion afoot.

0
FollowupID: 23358

Follow Up By: the shed guy - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:09

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:09
Is lowering yourself to name calling like "dumbo" really helping???

I think not.

How about acting your age, instead of your shoe size fella's?
0
FollowupID: 23359

Follow Up By: Mick - Saturday, Oct 04, 2003 at 21:50

Saturday, Oct 04, 2003 at 21:50
Hello Ken ... Did I happen to hit a raw nerve? LOL It's a sure sign when people get abusive. I'm glad you think your vehicle is a troopy in a Winnebago. Having been in a Winnebago I find it hard to imagine where you got all the extra space but I'm glad you're happy with it. Still think it's a bit over capitalised though even at $75,000 but yes it's yours and your money. Pity that you won't be able to do any real off roading anymore but if it's a Winnebago you're after then enjoy it!
0
FollowupID: 23441

Follow Up By: Member - Ken - Sunday, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:34

Sunday, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:34
Mick

Yep! especially when I have spent a lot of time and effort along with tortuous R&D trips at different stages of develpment to get the sucker where it is today.

Its just come back from its final thrash and bash test through the Simpson and the only hiccup was a tyre.

Its now ready for the CSR and all those other doozie of tracks and obstacles which I intend to do in the near future without the ever nagging doubt of, ' is it up to it'

Also I have factored in murphy's ' bleep happens factor' and can easily survive in that machine for 8 weeks if we have to.

Now getting back to where this all started off, I wanted to protect/insure it as best I could for a total wipe out.

In all the posts on this thread you will see mentioned a number of times that Insurance companies require full disclosure on what you are going to do with whatever it is you want to insure. They require this to base their risk assessment on.

So I disclosed what I wanted insured and for what purpose, and I ended up undergoing the regime I mentioned above.

As for over capitilsing, well thats like pumping money into a house with the intention of making a killing on a near future resale.

Yes you are over capitolising if you intend/think/wish to sell later and recoup your money. However I have no intention of that and actually intend to have the troopy buried with me.

So I'll leave it at that and hopefully others will glean something from ALL the input to the initial question re insurance that started the 'spirited debate' in this thread.

Who knows , I may run into you 'out there' one day and you are most welcome to inspect the subject controversial vehicle.

Regards

Ken Robinson

0
FollowupID: 23456

Reply By: Member - Melissa - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:24

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:24
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
AnswerID: 32600

Reply By: Rhubarb - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 19:00

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 19:00
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.
AnswerID: 32626

Follow Up By: Bonz (Vic) - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 23:20

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 23:20
Dead right, I had a PDA that got water in it when dropped into the sink, called the ins co and they said no go BUT if the sink had overflowed then it would have been ok....grrrrrrrr seems like a dumb thing to do both ways, appears only one type of dumbness is covered, beats me why.Laterally Literal
Seriously Cerebral
0
FollowupID: 23413

Reply By: Rhubarb - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 19:00

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 19:00
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.
AnswerID: 32627

Reply By: landie - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:39

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 20:39
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!

AnswerID: 32636

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 22:04

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 22:04
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?

The dude that brought this up, when he started asking them questions about that, it got hazey... They can use that to their advantage, cause insurance companies are your friend. Putting it in writing is more to get them to stand by their statement rather than cause any other issues.. You will find out more often than not that they wont do it, thus meaning they have ways and means of getting around it, and they dont want you to know this, they just want your $$.

I see what your saying, but I trust charles manson and George Bush more than insurance companies, Id rather find out before having an accident than thinking your covered and your not.

The thing with court, it costs bleep in heaps to prove you are innocent thats IF you win. Time and money
They can afford to drag it out for years if they like to just break you. And they do it all the time.
0
FollowupID: 23346

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 22:07

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 22:07
What you see (read) is what you get, no ambiguity.

Couldnt disagree more!!!!
You havent heard of their "Creative Writing"?? What you think something means isnt what they MEAN it to be.. And the law will be on their side. Its up to you to ask the questions on what somethign means.

0
FollowupID: 23347

Follow Up By: landie - Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:23

Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:23
Truckster

The product disclosure statements, along with the policies of all major insurance companies are designed to be simple state it as it is documents.

You mention that insurance companies can use vague documents to their advantage. Well the more vague it is the better it is for the insured!

It is up to the insurance company to exclude the risks that they do not want to take, and if it isn’t in the exclusions you have every right to assume you are covered. This is providing you meet the general policy requirements.

Remember, insurance companies are professional underwriters; they cannot exclude liability for something they should reasonably be expected to know. If you are insuring a four wheel drive vehicle, that is purposely designed to go off-road, they can’t reject a claim simply on the basis that they didn’t think you would take it off-road.

But, we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day it is up to the individual to feel comfortable with their own insurance.

However, I will share with you a story that appeared in the recent addition of the VKS 737 magazine. It deals with insurance.

“A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them again fire among other things. Within a month having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without having yet made his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed his first claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost in a ‘series of small fires’. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason; that the man has consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and won!

In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them again fire, without defining what is considered to be ‘unacceptable fire’ and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for the loss of his rare cigars lost in the fires”.

So you can see defining something specifically is not always the best way to go............................

Mind you the lawyer was subsequently arrested, fined, and jailed for intentionally burning his insured property. But that is a completely separate issue (great story though).

Good luck out there
Landie
0
FollowupID: 23361

Follow Up By: Member - Cocka - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 00:25

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 00:25
T, I hope you see the point that Landie makes as I believe he makes it with some authority to do so.
Whilst the Q's raised at your club meeting were valid and there are many similar scenarios we should address, I call them the "what if" factors, I also try to read documents to understand the intent of the obligations disclosed, to see where the line is drawn in the sand. Insc. Co's can't be seen to be a bottomless pit of money willing to pay every claim shoved across the counter by negligent 2/- policy holders. Insurance is all about risk, yours and theirs, you know yours they have to risk that they understand your needs.

When it comes to law there is the word of the law as it is in intended, however the matters that keep lawyers in courts is proving "intent". If you can prove that it was not your "intention" to break the law, but there were mittigating circumstances, after all , "look at my good record", then the courts will most likely look to your good record as proof of your circumstance.
I read, clearly, your first scenarios and understood them the way you intended them to be read, but Mick on two occasions had an intirely different interpretation. He was at fault, a dumbo.
It's great to ask the Q's but you can only win the war if you understand the stratergies of both sides, clearly.
0
FollowupID: 23364

Follow Up By: Member - Melissa - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:26

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:26
Well said Landie!

:o) MelissaPetrol 4.5L GU Patrol &
Camprite TL8 offroad camper
0
FollowupID: 23373

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:19

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:19
You mention that insurance companies can use vague documents to their advantage. Well the more vague it is the better it is for the insured!

I would disagree with this 100%.

Its not there to be in your favor, its there to give them scope, not you. Dont think that for one minute they are going to give a shait that you "thought it meant this", thats just BAD LUCK PAL, same arguement as I didnt know that was against the law, it wont wash.

As for the cigar story, try www.snopes.com Urban Legends page.

Claim: A cigar aficionado insures his stogies against fire, then tries to collect from his insurance company after he smokes them.

Status: False.

0
FollowupID: 23378

Reply By: landie - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:48

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:48
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.
AnswerID: 32673

Follow Up By: Member - Cocka - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:42

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:42
Landie I want to keep you up on that pedestal just a moment longer to thank you for the clear manner in which you have expressed very valid points.

Caveat emptor. I wonder what % of policy's get dropped into the bottom draw unread ? Many I suspect.

If I might extend the good point you raised re using a vehicle contrary to a manufacturers specifications or practices contrary to general safety, it is surely sensible, that if you know you are likely to be in breach that you drive your vehicle in a safe manner that reflects the degree of risk. Driving according the conditions is fundamental to safety, that includes not only the road but the condition of the vehicle also, eg if you have a loaded roof rack it alters the centre of gravity and adds mass to the GVW.

Must go now, got to read my policies (again).

0
FollowupID: 23379

Reply By: Alan H - Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 13:44

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 13:44
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"!
AnswerID: 32687

Reply By: Member - Bradley- Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 16:01

Friday, Oct 03, 2003 at 16:01
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.
AnswerID: 32707

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)