Offers for readers

The comment stream

Recent comments

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Finance sector jobs

Senior Legal Counsel
At NAB, it's all about our people reaching their full potential. And that means we drive t...more
Australia
Senior Financial Planner (Business) - Bondi - NSW - NAB
Senior Financial Planning professional to join our Business Banking team in Bondi....more
Australia
Senior Manager, Operational Risk & Monitoring
At NAB, it's all about our people reaching their full potential. And in MLC and NAB Wealth...more
Australia
Corporate Recovery Senior – Australia, Audit experience welcomed
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to work with this leading Australian Advis...more
Australia
efinancialcareers.com

Reader poll

Who do you think should be appointed Reserve Bank Governor to replace Alan Bollard when he retires in September?

Choices

Insurance: How the law protects you from some arbitary insurance decisions

Posted in News

By John Grant

Everyone has heard 'horror stories' about someone with an insurance claim denied for what first appears to be trivial reasons. But, insurers cannot deny your claim simply by using some policy wording that has no bearing on the nature of your claim.

Under New Zealand law, insurers cannot rely on an exclusion unless the excluded event or circumstances, caused or contributed to the insured's loss. The specific piece of legislation is section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 . The wording in that law is somewhat confusing and can be summarised as follows;

  • Where a policy has an exclusion because the event or circumstances was likely to increase the risk of loss, then
  • the insured does not lose indemnity if, on the balance of probabilities, the actual loss was not caused or contributed to by the excluded event or circumstances.

A good example is age excess. If a 19 year old has parked a car properly and the car was subsequently damaged while it was parked, then an age excess could not be applied because the age of the driver cannot be seen as causing the loss.

Another example would be a person driving a car without a current Warrant of Fitness.

Section 11 would require the insurer to show that the accident had a direct cause to the lack of vehicle safety. For example, bald tyres and not being able to stop in a reasonable distance would probably be grounds to deny a claim.

But being hit from behind while stationary when you do not have a current WOF would not permit an insurer to deny a claim, as it would fail the S11 test.

Driving while using a cell-phone provides yet another example. An insurer who has an exclusion on the use of cell-phones while driving would need to be able to show that the use of the cell-phone contributed to the accident.

There have been many cases of section 11 being applied and a claim paid where one may have expected it to otherwise be declined.

The test could simply be, does it seem fair to apply this exclusion/condition and does it have a direct relationship to the claim I am lodging?

If not, then you could well have grounds to dispute the decline of your claim by using section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

4 Comments

Excellent snippet of information. But

Excellent snippet of information.

But what about lets say someone did not declare all their traffic infringements on the policy?
Could this then be interpreted by the company that the policy was obtained with intention to not declare everything...which would have effected how the insurance company charged premiums or even agreed to cover and get out that way
Even thu the previous infringement has no bearing on the current claim

John, thank you! This is

John, thank you! This is a vastly under-publicized piece of legislation.

Steps: if you had an accident while speeding, then they may be able to argue your claim should be denied. But a case in the 80's (sorry, haven't got time to reference) gives a fairly clear-steer that the Court will generally err on the side of the consumer.

You have still failed to declare, which is a separate matter (arguably bordering on fraud).

But if you got a ticket subsequent to signing a form... there would have to be a demonstration of a material link between the information and the claim...

Thanks. A great piece of

Thanks. A great piece of info all policy holders should know. :-)

Thank you Slarty...that along the

Thank you Slarty...that along the lines I thought it would be...
I ask out of interest...2 speeding tickets in over 40yrs. last over a decade ago...couple parking, and a couple no rego or WoF cause forgot...which where cancels cause fixed the issue within a couple hrs.
1 acident..when the car was parked, another while stopped at an intersection, a car stolen, and another travelling at 15km with a trailer and run off the road....
And drive a 400 hp 150 mph 13 sec 1/4 mile 40 yr old American muscle car 5.8L V8 thats over 4mpg better than a modern computerised V6... and costs less to insure than the wifes corolla and less to regist.