Thread: Write off ????

Originally Posted by scott oz

Good luck if it's and insurnce job. let me know because I've never seen an insurer repair a vehicle that's failed due to wear and tear caused by road conditions. And I'll insure with that company..

I'm with NRMA and I think their premium cover returns the vehilce to you if you've elected to return home? can't remember.

Ahh well you see, that's the game. Insurance covers you for specific incidents, and so if you can say that road conditions on day x were such that they caused damage to my car then you may be covered. However if you say I traveled course y for six months and on month seven my car broke, then you are not likely to be covered.

The more specific, the better. It helps if you have a photo of the pot-hole you can say contributed to the damage, for example. What you also need to be able to say is that there had been no previous similar occurrences of damage to the same part/place on the car, otherwise they may ping you for wear and tear or faulty workmanship on previous work done.

They will also ping you for design faults, saying such things are between you and the manufacturer. So a weak chassis member, that is frequently known to fail, may be put into the civil suits file (and will not be processed as a claim) but a chassis that breaks while a vehicle that was performing its designed purpose on a road that was not up to the required level of standard for roading is more likely to go through.

Successive damages also need to be linked to the contributing incident. So the TC damage was caused by the original damage but it looks bad if you say my chassis broke and I drove another 2000 km then the TC case broke too. They will laugh loudly as they aim for the bin. However if you can demonstrate that you undertook to make remedial repairs in order to get the vehicle to a proper place of repair but in doing so the TC also broke, then it is more likely to be covered. That part comes under all reasonable actions that ought to be taken by a reasonable person. It would be unreasonable to expect A grade repairs in the middle of the Simpson and it would be just as unreasonable to expect someone in the middle of Sydney to wait a week before getting such repairs done when in both cases the result was going to be a trashed TC.

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Ahh well you see, that's the game. Insurance covers you for specific incidents, and so if you can say that road conditions on day x were such that they caused damage to my car then you may be covered. However if you say I traveled course y for six months and on month seven my car broke, then you are not likely to be covered.

The more specific, the better. It helps if you have a photo of the pot-hole you can say contributed to the damage, for example. What you also need to be able to say is that there had been no previous similar occurrences of damage to the same part/place on the car, otherwise they may ping you for wear and tear or faulty workmanship on previous work done.

They will also ping you for design faults, saying such things are between you and the manufacturer. So a weak chassis member, that is frequently known to fail, may be put into the civil suits file (and will not be processed as a claim) but a chassis that breaks while a vehicle that was performing its designed purpose on a road that was not up to the required level of standard for roading is more likely to go through.

Successive damages also need to be linked to the contributing incident. So the TC damage was caused by the original damage but it looks bad if you say my chassis broke and I drove another 2000 km then the TC case broke too. They will laugh loudly as they aim for the bin. However if you can demonstrate that you undertook to make remedial repairs in order to get the vehicle to a proper place of repair but in doing so the TC also broke, then it is more likely to be covered. That part comes under all reasonable actions that ought to be taken by a reasonable person. It would be unreasonable to expect A grade repairs in the middle of the Simpson and it would be just as unreasonable to expect someone in the middle of Sydney to wait a week before getting such repairs done when in both cases the result was going to be a trashed TC.

Will be interesting. Insurnce covers you against accidental damage. If you drive down a road for a day and the overall condition of the road bends your chassie then sorry while the result may be unintended, bent chassie, the cause of the damage is not, use on a poor road and the use of the vehicle on such a road will result in damage.

Anyhow interesting

Originally Posted by scott oz

Insurnce covers you against accidental damage.

While they use the word "accident" insurance does not cover you against "accidents". Insurance covers you against "incidents". "Accidents", particularly in regards to motor vehicle insurance, are regarded as no-fault incidents and those are what you tend not to be covered for. In reality there is no such thing as an "accident" because there is always a cause.

Anyway, that is why I said you need to point to a particular cause of the incident. Why? Insurance companies exist to make a profit and they cannot do that if they are going to pay out for everything that passes their desk. I once had a boss when I worked in the insurance industry (many years ago now) whose motto was "don't pay out unless you have to". In those cases when the insurance company does have to make a payment, they are going to try to get that lost money back from somewhere and that's why you need to point the finger of blame for them. You help them to not make a loss and they are more likely to process your claim.

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel

Originally Posted by hagus

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel

I have hit wash outs in 109 utes that have thrown the 44 gallon drums out the back but never hurt the vehicle.
Must of been one Mother of a wash out or 130s are softer than I thought.
I do wish you well in getting it repaired

Originally Posted by hagus

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel

Good stuff. You just follow their instructions and any subsequent damages should also be covered

If it was indeed a washout that did it get the front axle checked to see if it is straight. Don't ask how i know.

Originally Posted by disco2hse

While they use the word "accident" insurance does not cover you against "accidents". Insurance covers you against "incidents". "Accidents", particularly in regards to motor vehicle insurance, are regarded as no-fault incidents and those are what you tend not to be covered for. In reality there is no such thing as an "accident" because there is always a cause.
...........

This is a special use of the word "accident", and while I am quite prepared to believe insurance companies use the word in that way, the normal English use of the the word is to mean something bad that was unintended, not something without a cause. In fact, if the damage was intended, the insurance company most certainly would not cover it if the insured intended it, and would look for a police report if anyone else did. Normal use of "incident" is similar to accident without the connotation of being "bad".

In reality, there would be vanishingly small numbers of accidents that have "a cause". Almost any real life occurrence has multiple factors, none of which can be regarded as a single cause. In this case I suggest some of them would be likely to include the fact that the chassis design is really a stretch of the 110 design, carrying loads well beyond the original design, the method of mounting the tray (I suspect this is the major preventable factor!), the quality of the roads driven over, driving habits including loads carried (it is possible that some of the "roads" would, in the view of the manufacturers, have been designated as "offroad", with a lower weight limit).

Sorry about the rant, but attempts by special interests to reform English are rarely successful, and just confuse the subject.

John