Questions regarding insurance...

[Ken_au]

Hi ppl... Got a question which i hope u can help me with... Situation is Person A has a company and a commercial van registered under his name. Due to the fact tat he doesnt always use his van, he decided to rent out his vehicle to Person B at a certain price per month. Question is wat must Person A do in order for the insurance to cover Person B as from now Person B will be the one mostly driving the van? Sorry for the long question bros...

CHEERS!!!

[Guyver]

Don't need .... but legally .... insurance companies doesn't covers rental.

[Falc]

Yap. I think if insurance company has proof of rental arrangement, then may not cover liao.

Got to take clandestine steps all the way.

[Ken_au]

I see... Thanks bros...

[Shull]

sorry to hijack thread..but i wanna ask..

 

what is 'excess' in insurance term?

 

and if say A kiss B backside..should B:

 

1) Go to his insurance's authorised workshop..repair then let the workshop claim from A's insurance coy

2) Go to A's workshop and let A's workshop claim..

3) Any other method to claim..please state..

 

Thanks

[Porche]

go to B's own workshop to claim better

[Starian]

1) go to B's insurance authorised W/S. and let W/S claim from A's ins coy.

 

Excess is the amount of $$ you have to pay should you need to repair your OWN vehicle in the event the accident is due to your OWN fault.

[Sci10213]

"Excess is the amount of $$ you have to pay should you need to repair your OWN vehicle in the event the accident is due to your OWN fault. "

 

This is wrong concept...

 

It should be as follows:

 

"Excess is the amount of $$ you have to pay should you need to claim your OWN policy (Comprehensive) for repairs to your OWN vehicle in the event of the accident, NO MATTER whose fault.

 

In addition, there are many different types of excess to note of also.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Sci10213

[Acrs]

Hi Bro,

 

Excess is the amount of money the policy holder need to pay , when claiming his own insurance company (comprehensive policy). This is irregardless of how much the cost of repair to his own vehicle.

 

For example : If the cost of repairing your vehicle to its pre-accident condition is $5000. And if your excess is only $500, then you need only pay $500 when making a claim towards your own insurance. The rest of the $4500 will be settle by your insurance comapny.

 

In situation when the repair cost is say $800- $1K, then perhaps the owner might need to think twice about making a claim to its own insurance. This is because , on top of paying the excess (eg $500), the owner will lose its NCD as well. Which might in the long run, not to his advantage.

 

Owner also need to take note of special excess stated inside their policy before making an own damage claims. (eg. young drivers , inexperience drivers , unnamed drivers, limited windscreen coverage, etc)

 

 

.

[Acrs]

.

 

In the case when A kiss B backside, B should go to the workshop that he is comfortable with (whether its agent workshop, authorised workshop , or his regular workshop).

 

The most important thing is, B should go to an experienced workshop that can give B expert advice on Third Party Accident claims and quality repairs with good after-repair services.

 

Most car drivers are probably not aware that when it comes to third party accident claims. Drivers can go to any workshop for repairs. So don't be fooled by others telling you where you can go , where you cannot go.

 

.

[Acrs]

.

 

Most importantly, when making a third party claim.... don't ever fall into the trap of claiming your own insurance first before reverting it to a third party claim....

 

Never , never do that.... its like saying you are at fault even before going to court to fight the case. Its better to get expert advice from someone you trust, then to listen to others (eg. friends,ins co , auth wkshop, etc)

 

If all else fails.... just use your own logic ......

 

[ A kiss B backside = B pay excess and claims his own insurance first ?? ]

 

 

.

[Gabriel]

there is appointed drivers under insurance..

maybe B can be placed as a named driver under the van...

dat way..should be able to cover insurance..

but um..think best not to let insurance company noe it is under rental...

do correct me if i am wrong...

coz me not sure oso

[Sci10213]

This is nonsense... There is no admission of liability when you claim OWN insurance. There is no law to say you are at fault if you claim OWN insurance!

 

There is nothing wrong in claiming OWN insurance.

 

If A kiss B backside => B pay excess and claims his own insurance first is OK. Then insurer of B will proceed to claim insurer of A for repair costs. B can also claim insurer of A for his excess (on his own).

 

NCD will be reinstated IF:

 

1) insurer of B gets back at least 80% of repair costs from insurer of A OR

2) B gets back at least 80% of losses from insurer of A

 

N.B.

If B choose to claim A for repair costs i.e. TP claim, in the event B fails to succeed, then B may face the risk of having to pay for all the repair costs. Whereas if B claim own damage, if B fails, his risk is only limited to his NCD & his excess only.

 

Get the idea?

 

There is no sure win in accident claims...if A kiss B backside, A may twist his story. So in the end B suck thumb...

Edited July 26, 2007 by Sci10213

[Mach]

You are right . Its a fact that some authorised distributors don't do 3rd party claims (eg Borneo Motors), so if you want to get your car fixed by them, you HAVE to claim against your own insurance first if you don't want to pay cash.

[Starian]

"Excess is the amount of $$ you have to pay should you need to repair your OWN vehicle in the event the accident is due to your OWN fault. "

 

This is wrong concept...

 

It should be as follows:

 

"Excess is the amount of $$ you have to pay should you need to claim your OWN policy (Comprehensive) for repairs to your OWN vehicle in the event of the accident, NO MATTER whose fault.

 

In addition, there are many different types of excess to note of also.

 

Ok, paisei, I forgot hit and run cases, so if other ppl hit u and run and we can't find the culprit, it become our fault too...

[Sci10213]

Its ok. MCF is also a place for learning & sharing.

[Acrs]

This is nonsense... There is no admission of liability when you claim OWN insurance. There is no law to say you are at fault if you claim OWN insurance!

 

There is nothing wrong in claiming OWN insurance.

 

Bro,

 

You are rite. There are no law stating that. If its not an admission of liability by making an OD claim, then why should car owners force to pay excess and get their NCD deducted first??

 

Try asking your own insurance / agent workshop when making a OD claims next time. Tell them , its not your fault in the accident, but since they advice you to make a OD claim , they shouldn't be asking you to pay excess & deduct your NCD first ....

if they still refuse. Try the following .......

 

"Anyway There is no admission of liability when you claim OWN insurance. There is no law to say you are at fault if you claim OWN insurance . So why should we as owners make to pay excess and deduct NCD first?? "

 

 

In the past, when car owners got into an accident and its not their fault. The general cause of action will be to make a third party claim. However in recent times, insurance companies (in my opinion) are pushing the concept of "OD claims for all type of accident" so as to speed up accident claims processing time and reduce litigation/paperwork/administration cost.

 

However, whether who (the consumer or the insurance company) actually benefited from this concept is yet to be known.

 

 

If A kiss B backside => B pay excess and claims his own insurance first is OK. Then insurer of B will proceed to claim insurer of A for repair costs. B can also claim insurer of A for his excess (on his own).

 

NCD will be reinstated IF:

 

1) insurer of B gets back at least 80% of repair costs from insurer of A OR

2) B gets back at least 80% of losses from insurer of A

 

 

In theory, it's easy , fast & hassle free. That is why your insurance company / agent workshop are trying to push this "Anything also OD claims concept" to car owners. But alot of owners fail to realise when you make a OD claim, you are actually giving your insurance co, the right to decide your liability contribution in the accident.

 

If A kiss B backside. B went ahead to make a OD claims (even thought B think that he is 100% not at fault), pay the excess, got NCD deducted first and let the ins co take over.

 

On the other hand, A (thinking that its also not his fault) went ahead to make a 3rd party claim, and get legal advice to present the case to B's insurance.

What happen next... ??

 

 

1) Assuming this case is "not a clear cut kiss" , to avoid further litigation B's insurance may settle with A's lawyer a 50-50 liability contribution.

 

B will then lose his NCD and kiss his excess goodbye... Most importantly, B will have to accept this , cos on the onset, he has made an OD claim, and thus all decision lies with his insurance now.

 

2) Sometimes to a driver its a "clear cut kiss" and he is not to be blame, but often its your insurance co that has the expertise to analyze the accident reports of the 2 drivers involved. If B's insurance co think that B is at fault or partially at fault, they will make no second thoughts to close the case and settle the other party's claims as soon as possible.

 

Why?? Because to prolong litigation is a very costly process, and anyway B's insurance has already penalise B with Excess payment & reduce NCD, so why should the claim's officer of B's insurance add more cost by taking additional risk to fight the case out with A's lawyer? The longer you drag.... the cost just get snow ball.

 

3) Ofcourse the "ideal kiss" will be when A went to report the accident and sign on the report that he is 100% at fault in causing the accident . Then B will be very happy, to get his excess refunded and NCD reinstated.

 

My question is, how many of such cases will you think happens? Do most drivers readily admit their own fault in an accident??

 

 

N.B.

If B choose to claim A for repair costs i.e. TP claim, in the event B fails to succeed, then B may face the risk of having to pay for all the repair costs. Whereas if B claim own damage, if B fails, his risk is only limited to his NCD & his excess only.

 

Get the idea?

 

There is no sure win in accident claims...if A kiss B backside, A may twist his story. So in the end B suck thumb...

 

 

You are right again Bro, i absolutely agree with you. There are no sure win in motor accident claims cases, which is why its better to get proper advice in navigating motor accident claims process, so as to increase your probability of winning .

 

Sometimes, solution that seems faster and easier might not be always the best. There are some other ways that may be better.

 

Everyday, i have worried drivers that come to me for assistance..... i always says this to them " As long as you don't sustain any body injury, then its already a blessing, whatever the outcome of the motor accident claims, it doesn't matter, $ can settle that. Your car will still be able to restore to its pre-accident state."

 

Hope my 2cents worth of advice above are useful to those owners out there going through a motor accident claims

 

For further discussion, do reach me at [email protected] or Yahoo messenger ID : acrsgroup

 

 

.

[Sci10213]

Hi ACRS,

 

Paying of excess is a policy condition if one is to make OD claim. This is CLEARLY STATED in the policy jacket of every insurance company. NCD = No Clams Discount. This means no claim from TP or OD. It does not mean No Fault Claim. So even if you claim TP w/o making OD claim thinking that you are not at fault, your NCD will also be affected ONCE the other party make a claim against your policy even though it may not be your fault.

 

Unfortunately many owners do not understand how claims work.

 

In the past, it is the workshop that encourages people to make TP claim so as to "protect the NCD". But in actual fact, during those times the KFK agreement is already in place. Each insurance company is supposed to settle their own bill regardless of whose fault. Of course, when this theory is deemed illogical or in need of improvement, people start to try other methods. As times go by, there are many changes to the claiming process. Now even FIDREC is involved w.e.f. next year for claims below $1,000. Thus the claiming process undergoes changes quite frequently. And I won't be surprised if one day, there is a law passed to make OD claims compulsory.

 

I do agree with you once owner makes OD claim, the recovery rights are given to the insurance company. However, dun forget this: Whatever settlement the insurance company has with the other claimant, as long as the insured can recover 80% of his losses i.e. excess & loss of use/rental, he can also reinstate his NCD.

So it is still a win-win situation.

 

Bro, you are in this industry also. So you should know the "black" practices of many workshops. What is the main reason for claiming TP instead of OD? To protect NCD? Is that the real reason?

 

I agree that at end of the day, your life is still the most important thing. NCD can always earn back. But when a life or limb is lost, that's it.

No amount of NCD can buy you a limb or life.

 

Seriously speaking, NCD is the cause of all disputes.

 

I hope one day NCD is abolished.