In this section
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 19105
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 276
- ››
Finance sector jobs
At NAB, it's all about our people reaching their full potential. And that means we drive t...more
Australia
Senior Financial Planning professional to join our Business Banking team in Bondi....more
Australia
At NAB, it's all about our people reaching their full potential. And in MLC and NAB Wealth...more
Australia
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to work with this leading Australian Advis...more
Australia

The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 116
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 78
- Friday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 28
- The problems with NZ's energy use 20
- Amanda's Take Five for Wednesday 19
- More bank mortgage rate cuts 16
- Govt lifts minimum wage 50 cts to $13.50 an hour 16
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 15
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 14
- Full time jobs fall 13,000 in Dec qtr 14
Most viewed
Interest on Twitter
Insurance: How the law protects you from some arbitary insurance decisions
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.
Related Topics
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.
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.