Car insurance ? Guilty as charged !

[Brogue]

What I am suggesting is that it was incumbent upon the insurer to clarify that you were not entitled to a no -claim bonus, in any event, since the policy had terminated.

 

Yes and No

 

Yes, if the OP was at fault and the third party claimed against the OP's policy. In this case though liability rests with the third party (they have admitted as much by offering a settlement) so the NCB remains in place if a successful recovery against the third party takes place. There is no TP pending claim against his policy.

 

The OP should be using the legal department of his own underwriter to strengthen his case for the TP to accept full liability. Insurer to insurer direct communication and courtesy carries considerably more weight than Joe Soap's layman-type correspondence. Running a red light or stop sign carries full responsibility. Any half decent lawyer would smash their naked attempt to take advantage of the OP's vulnerability..

[Vangar]

 

 

I am not even sure if I have a broker for vehicle insurance or if it is direct. I insured through Standard Bank Insurance but the policy is with Hollard. Would Standard Bank perform the same role as a Broker in this case? If not, can you perhaps recommend a broker?

 

Technically standard bank is the broker i suupose. Im on the same insurance. The premium and excess is unbeatable and the one claim I had was good. Outsurance were the only company to ever quote me insurance higher than my car repayment. R4200 for a R120 000 VW Polo in 2007.

[Brogue]

I am not even sure if I have a broker for vehicle insurance or if it is direct. I insured through Standard Bank Insurance but the policy is with Hollard. Would Standard Bank perform the same role as a Broker in this case? If not, can you perhaps recommend a broker?

No its sounds like Std Bank are selling you products underwritten by hollard - speak to cpt arm pies mayham. He is very clued up

Technically standard bank is the broker i suupose. Im on the same insurance. The premium and excess is unbeatable and the one claim I had was good. Outsurance were the only company to ever quote me insurance higher than my car repayment. R4200 for a R120 000 VW Polo in 2007.

 

Standard Bank has their own "in-house" insurance intermediary, Standard Bank Insurance Brokers.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

 

 

Standard Bank has their own "in-house" insurance intermediary, Standard Bank Insurance Brokers.

correct. whoever your contact was in standard bank is your broker.

 

as an aside - I don't deal in short term insurance, but I know the ins and outs quite well, as well as having contacts who are very well respected in the short term insurance world.

[Patchelicious]

@Wahoofish

 

SB Insurance Brokers is probably who you deal with. Lady who heads it up the broker network Tracy is also a cyclist...

 

Have a chat any FIA accredited short term broker. http://www.fia.org.z...oviderDirectory

Edited June 25, 2014 by ArchedBackChinOut

[BigDL]

@Wahoofish

 

SB Insurance Brokers is probably who you deal with. Lady who heads it up the broker network Tracy is also a cyclist...

 

Have a chat any FIA accredited short term broker. http://www.fia.org.z...oviderDirectory

 

Appreciate your taking the time to send me the PM with details.

[Cassie]

A work colleague was in a similar situation. A guy jumped a stop street and hit her. Her matter ended up in court. The magistrate ruled that she did not take the correct evasive action and apportioned the blame 60/40. Fortunately her insurance sorted the issue out (including the 40% liability to his car).

 

So yes, there is such a thing as partial blame

 

This is utter BS!! WTf must i do when some other ass JUPS a robot / stop street??? HUh? How can I evade or avoid this??? And then cherry on top...partially blame me for doing f-all !!!

Wow, I'm going to have bad dreams about this one... :cursing: :cursing:

[PhilipV]

 

 

This is utter BS!! WTf must i do when some other ass JUPS a robot / stop street??? HUh? How can I evade or avoid this??? And then cherry on top...partially blame me for doing f-all !!!

Wow, I'm going to have bad dreams about this one... :cursing: :cursing:

I redid k53 for my code 14 licence a week ago so this is freshly imprinted in me.

When you approach any side street where a car has the potential to drive into or in front of you, you need to look at said side street with enough time to be able to take evasive action if necessary. Basically when you approach a 45deg angle to the street.

What happens when you get T-boned by a speeding car I cannot comment on, as I doubt you will have been able to take evasive action.

 

The idea is that we cannot blindly drive on and trust that people at side streets and red lights will stop, we need to drive defensively assuming that everyone else is the lowest common denominator. Which IMO truly is safer, but also legally protects the lowest common denominator to an extent in the legal sense, which I think is utter BS.

[Jigghead]

I was insured with Outsurance ( 3rd Party , fire , theft, never-ever ) Decided to not " use-up " no-claim bonus and handle the claim as Mr. Pr#ck admitted guilt in front of witnesses . WRONG DECISION. It is the insurance company of Mr.Pri#ck ( CIB , somehow linked to ABSA )that is making the offer in full and final settlement

 

AFAIK this cover only offers cover for your loss in the event of fire or theft and not in the event of an accident. In this day and age, knowing the perils we face on the roads every day, I cannot understand why one would neglect to cover themselves for an accident unless they are certain they will never be in the wrong or that the other driver will always have insurance.

 

But back to the case in point, I'd go after this idiot, he skipped a stop and wiped out your car. If there had been a fatality, would he then get to absolve himself of some or all of the guilt based on this apportionment rule? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Pieterg]

:cursing: :thumbdown:

['Dale]

wtf is the world coming to

Edited June 27, 2014 by ' Dale

[Cassie]

ja, i'm a bit gobsmacked at the momement!! I'm all for defensive driving...but really??

 

@Jigghead makes a valid point re: what if a fatatlity occurs? Then suddenly all balme to one person aor do the appotionment rule still apply?

 

AND WHY MUST I BASICALLY STOP AT EVERY INETRESECTION JUST IN CASE SOME ASS DECIDED NIOT TO STOP WHEN HE SHOULD??? This reasoning actually just gives them more freedom to just ignore the BASIC road rules...because now the the "other" road users will have to look out for me...I can do as i wish!!

 

It can only be in SA....

[marko35s]

ja, i'm a bit gobsmacked at the momement!! I'm all for defensive driving...but really??

 

@Jigghead makes a valid point re: what if a fatatlity occurs? Then suddenly all balme to one person aor do the appotionment rule still apply?

 

AND WHY MUST I BASICALLY STOP AT EVERY INETRESECTION JUST IN CASE SOME ASS DECIDED NIOT TO STOP WHEN HE SHOULD??? This reasoning actually just gives them more freedom to just ignore the BASIC road rules...because now the the "other" road users will have to look out for me...I can do as i wish!!

 

It can only be in SA....

Surprisingly not, it's fairly standard as far as I know.

But that doesn't mean you have to agree with the insurance company's assessment of blame, you can fight them on it.

[Tromp]

This is utter BS!! WTf must i do when some other ass JUPS a robot / stop street??? HUh? How can I evade or avoid this??? And then cherry on top...partially blame me for doing f-all !!!

Wow, I'm going to have bad dreams about this one... :cursing: :cursing:

I have been to the Lawyers. They recon it has become the accepted norm to apportion blame. The only factor that is debatable is the % liability. In any case , they recon , it will never be lower than 10 % . AND to add to it , I can conciser myself lucky that I was not charged a % of the damage to said Pr#ck's car ( new Volvo ) Edited June 27, 2014 by Tromp

[RockCoach]

I have been to the Lawyers. They recon it has become the accepted norm to apportion blame. The only factor that is debatable is the % liability. In any case , they recon , it will never be lower than 10 % . AND to add to it , I can conciser myself lucky that I was not charged a % of the damage to said Pr#ck's car ( new Volvo )

 

Not true. The wife was stationary turning right at an intersection when an old Porsche driven by an old drunk driver came out of the centre where the pub was and sideswiped our car. Driver then proceeded to try and get away up Jan Smuts. Fortunately she was in our GTI and managed to catch him and pull him over at Hyde Park and manages to get his details (I would have had him arrested but that's another story)

 

About an hour later we get a call from his insurers that they will pay for damages. Cool, fine no problem. We get quotes and submit them. They accept but say they will only pay 90%. Oh, really??? Well maybe your client would like to come down to the police station and tell us why while we lay a charge. So they paid 100%.