The importance of Full Cover Insurance

[qube 3570]

Remember to buy full cover insurance guys! We only had 3rd party cover with AA insurance.

My dads car (whilst driven by my gf with my parents) was hit by a young kid with his 1 month old E90 320i starting his new job and no insurance.

My old man in the photo clearly not too happy..

Luckily no one was hurt.

Now I gotta see what to do with the car

Edited August 16, 2018 by qube

[Eagle 1662]

Yeah i remember having 3rd party on my first E34 i bought. A drunk driver hit it in the rear with a bullbar fitted ute and drove off, got his details and the police paid him a visit but they couldnt do sh*t. Car was a write off with bend chassis rail but at least i found another body with a stuffed motor and swapped the engine\trans over.

Never got 3rd party again after that

[hotwire 352]

To true on cars with any value. Particularly when there are so many muppets running around with NO insurance!

[sobanoodle 45]

I had my 2011 535i Touring written off a few months back. Uninsured restricted license driver in a 300Z Nissan. Not even a third party.

She written off two cars (apart from her own) and caused damage to two motorway barriers (which will need to be fixed with the traffic control in place == $$$).

I was fully covered.

 

 

[Young Thrash Driver 1020]

Oh man that sucks... glad no injury was involved! Let's look on the bright side, one less E9x 320i on the roads?

Now for the first question on everyone's lips- did that rim survive???

[qube 3570]

i couldnt see the drivers side but i think the rims are all good

[hotwire 352]

Soooo when the f##k are the authorities in this country going to wake up to make insurance compulsory. it only needs to be 3rd party.

What gives the right to anyone to bash into someone else & not be responsible! 

[NZ BMW 368]

That sucks, sorry to hear it. 

[Jacko 2154]

7 minutes ago, hotwire said:

Soooo when the f##k are the authorities in this country going to wake up to make insurance compulsory. it only needs to be 3rd party.

What gives the right to anyone to bash into someone else & not be responsible! 

 

I bet the proportion of the population that do not have any insurance, also struggle with the concept of wof/rego, and will treat "compulsory" insurance the same. I dont disagree with you at all by the way, its the same problem with a bunch of regulation - You end up writing regs for the people that follow them, not the people who just DGAF. 

[turbolizard 38]

Voluntary insurance probably works out better for decent drivers.  If you want insurance you get it and if some idiot hits you then you can make a claim.  The people who want insurance are sharing the risk among themselves.  Making insurance compulsory just introduces all the morons into the pool and this makes it more expensive for everyone else on average. 

With voluntary insurance, all the accidents where two uninsured morons hit each other, or drive off the road by themselves, don't result in any claims (which helps keep premiums down).

[qube 3570]

I think third party insurance should be lumped together with car rego. I wouldnt mind paying more than $80 a year for rego which makes it way too easy for people to put cars on the road. 

[gjm 3258]

34 minutes ago, turbolizard said:

Voluntary insurance probably works out better for decent drivers.  If you want insurance you get it and if some idiot hits you then you can make a claim.  The people who want insurance are sharing the risk among themselves.  Making insurance compulsory just introduces all the morons into the pool and this makes it more expensive for everyone else on average. 

With voluntary insurance, all the accidents where two uninsured morons hit each other, or drive off the road by themselves, don't result in any claims (which helps keep premiums down).

This.

Make insurance compulsory (and it's no coincidence that the biggest campaigners for that are the insurance companies) and the premiums will go up. All the 'competition will make the market stable' claims will mean nothing - exactly this has happened in the UK. New drivers may spend as little as £500 to buy a car, and face £2500-3500 in annual insurance premiums.

At present, the voluntary nature of insurance in NZ means that you buy insurance to cover yourself. Make insurance compulsory, and you're buying it to cover everyone else.

[NZ BMW 368]

3 hours ago, gjm said:

This.

Make insurance compulsory (and it's no coincidence that the biggest campaigners for that are the insurance companies) and the premiums will go up. All the 'competition will make the market stable' claims will mean nothing - exactly this has happened in the UK. New drivers may spend as little as £500 to buy a car, and face £2500-3500 in annual insurance premiums.

At present, the voluntary nature of insurance in NZ means that you buy insurance to cover yourself. Make insurance compulsory, and you're buying it to cover everyone else.

Makes sense, it wouldn’t have changed anything  in this case except being better for the guy who had no insurance... 

[Olaf 3317]

Hey, Kyu, sorry to learn of the accident.  Delighted to hear nobody injured.  Great to be able to walk away from a stack.

[Olaf 3317]

8 hours ago, Jacko said:

 

I bet the proportion of the population that do not have any insurance, also struggle with the concept of wof/rego, and will treat "compulsory" insurance the same. I dont disagree with you at all by the way, its the same problem with a bunch of regulation - You end up writing regs for the people that follow them, not the people who just DGAF. 

I disagree.  It's really simple in Australia:  no insurance and no safety inspection passed, no rego.  Drive car without rego, you're f#$%ked.  It would be no harder to implement that here in godzone than any other scheme.  Then it's simply a compliance thing.  

The insurance companies would no doubt be happy, as their revenue would increase covering effectively the same risk they're currently - indirectly - covering for their insured drivers.

[gjm 3258]

14 minutes ago, Olaf said:

The insurance companies would no doubt be happy, as their revenue would increase covering effectively the same risk they're currently - indirectly - covering for their insured drivers.

Insurance companies would be ecstatic. The motorist cash cow would be forced to dig even deeper to pay even more to own a car. And prices would rise dramatically: competition currently comes from not needing insurance as well as other policies.

Bear in mind that there are two (confirm this?) insurance underwriters in NZ and compulsory insurance would become a rort. The government would implement an insurance tax...

If you want insurance, great. Buy it. There are times when it's a good thing. 

[Olaf 3317]

If it became a rort for two underwriters as you say, a third and fourth would enter the market, increasing competion and lowering prices.  That's what this is about, right?  Price vs Cost.  The Cost to the community of these uninsured asshats is far greater than panel damage.

 

EDIT:  and if the true cost of owning a motor car keeps an uninsured asshat off the road, I'm happy to pay more for my insurance!

Edited August 16, 2018 by Olaf
EDIT:

[qube 3570]

Reading the aa policy it says they will pay out $4000 against damage from uninsured party but i see a problem in the wording. 

They will pay upto $4000 of repairs if safe to do so. Otherwise they will pay out $4000 but keep the car in which case that doesnt work for me my wheels are worth that much. 

And i dont think they will give me $4000 and my car too.. damn.

[Jacko 2154]

2 hours ago, Olaf said:

I disagree.  It's really simple in Australia:  no insurance and no safety inspection passed, no rego.  Drive car without rego, you're f#$%ked.  It would be no harder to implement that here in godzone than any other scheme.  Then it's simply a compliance thing.  

The insurance companies would no doubt be happy, as their revenue would increase covering effectively the same risk they're currently - indirectly - covering for their insured drivers.

It kind of works in Aussie as they have serious fines, whereas here you get slapped with a wet bus ticket and that culture has stuck. It might work to introduce that here in the long run, but the sector who do not currently comply with the rules arent going to change any time soon. 

Part of it probably comes with our endless supply of dirt cheap imports, providing cars people cant actually afford at an affordable initial price

[gjm 3258]

2 hours ago, Olaf said:

If it became a rort for two underwriters as you say, a third and fourth would enter the market, increasing competion and lowering prices.  That's what this is about, right?  Price vs Cost.  The Cost to the community of these uninsured asshats is far greater than panel damage.

If it becomes a rort, others might enter the market but there are truly monumental hurdles to that happeniong.

And they'd only do so in order to also make money. Underwriters don't indulge in competition - that's left to the insurance suppliers. The only thing that varies are the conditions on an insurance policy, and the profit being made.

IAG made a profit of $1bn in 2017, and an insurance profit of $1.3bn (figures are for Australasia, not just NZ) despite having underwritten and paid out on earthquake insurance for Christchurch.

Nope. Insurance is not about helping people. It is solely about making money for a few people. As I said - buy insurance for yourself. That way you know you are covered in the event of accident, fire, theft, loss, whatever. Compulsory insurance won't help you if you're hit by an uninsured driver.

Edited August 16, 2018 by gjm
spelin', innit?

[qube 3570]

Would appreciate if anyone has something to add regarding best solution out of third party vs uninsured driver claims. 

I think i will probably take the car back and settle with the guy either in court or privately. He wont be able to pay off in full so will most likely be installments.

what to do with the car is a different matter. Dont wana give it away to the insurance company. 

[Gabe79 410]

2 hours ago, qube said:

Reading the aa policy it says they will pay out $4000 against damage from uninsured party but i see a problem in the wording. 

They will pay upto $4000 of repairs if safe to do so. Otherwise they will pay out $4000 but keep the car in which case that doesnt work for me my wheels are worth that much. 

And i dont think they will give me $4000 and my car too.. damn.

Are you sure this is right? That's a big gap. I just re-read mine, because it made me concerned, and mine calls this out explicitly as "covered." It'd be weird for me to think "comprehensive insurance" would provide only limited cover if someone else hits you who isn't insured...

 

Note, I use Tower. I have never made a claim, so I can't speak to quality, tbh... Policy summary here: https://www.tower.co.nz/car-insurance/comprehensive specific policy document here: https://www.tower.co.nz/~/media/Files/Tower/current-policies/Car_Comprehensive.ashx

 

EDIT: Reading the AA Comprehensive Policy document here: https://www.aainsurance.co.nz/manage-policy/policy-documents/comprehensive-car-insurance-policy-document-.html

I see nothing about that limit for uninsured drivers.

EDIT2: Before you offer to settle anything... "

What you must do

Immediately after an event occurs, you or any driver of your vehicle must:

• take all reasonable steps to prevent further loss or damage
• inform the police in the case of theft, burglary or vandalism, or any attempt at these
• not admit liability
• not, without our consent, incur any expense or negotiate, pay, settle, or make any agreement in relation to any claim. "

Edited August 16, 2018 by Gabe79

[qube 3570]

Gabe - We are talking about third party ONLY. not comprehensive.

Comprehensive cover aka full cover will cover agreed or market value depending on the insurance company.

 

In my case, I have third party only and normally its just tough luck but AA will cover upto $4000 if the total repair quote comes under this amount but if more then the car will be written off.

 

I just spoke with them and they said that I can get my own assessment done and make a claim.

I wanted to check if I can withdraw the claim if they want to write it off so I can get the car back and part it out myself and the lady seemed to think its possible to withdraw claims but Im not 100% confident. Will call again and ask but at this point I am thinking whether to take the car back from the tow yard or not.

[Gabe79 410]

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood.

 

It might vary by insurance, but I have withdrawn one claim with Tower before. 

[qube 3570]

Anyone have a recommendation for someone to value the car or damage assessment?