Page 1 of 6

My RA is a write off and claim is under review

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:42 pm
by Dejan
Hi All,

Guess my title explains the main points I was gonna talk about here, yeah came out of the intersection onto main road, the other guy came out of the one across the road and joining onto mine and missed him completely, when i came out the idiot actually acclerated for some reason (maybe he wants to write his car off too?? I dont know) and hit my front driver's side. It was a bad hit and his front was completely unrecognisable, air bags went off in his car and his radiator actually flew off the car!! He was being taken to hospital for SHOCK, for the record it was a brand new HOLDEN CALAIS V.

My car just got told by NRMA (my insurer) suffered suspension damage, guards, bonnet, headlight, road support, lights, grill, radiator major damage. THough i was being told chassis look OK on initial assessment.

There is a good chance that my car could be a written off, my agreed value with NRMA is $56,000 inclusive of all mods i've done with MRT, angel eyes, bixenon lights etccc (well documented on CJ forum).

However the drama doens't end there, i have been told that NRMA has SUSPENDED my claim and pending review, due to my BOV being non-standard and my pollution emission also exceeded that RTA's requirement. THere is a good chance that NRMA could refuse my claim!!!!

SO, here are my 2 questions for those knowledgable guys out there:

1. How likely do you think NRMA would refuse claim giving my circumstances, I mean is it really that bad?? After all after the mods were fittered i told NRMA and it was all registerd on their system fair dimkum. Is there anything i can do about it??

2. Given my description, how much do you think the whole repair would cost inclusive of labour, would it be more than 20 grand?? Would it warrant a write off???

Thanks so much for any input guys, sorry but dont have any pix here i will try to go back to assessment centre and take some pix to be uploatded.

Thanks again.


Dejan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:52 pm
by Mizta B
Dejan
If we can see pics it will help with assessing the damage mate
I had probs with NRMA years ago for something similar
If you have proof they acknowledged the mods and OKd them then they should honour the claim
I had to fight them on this same issue
When they checked their records they approved the repairs 30 minutes later....
Thats why I'm insured with Shannons now
Good luck mate - Chris.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:54 pm
by ofey
1. Since you've registed the mods and they didn't raise any objection, that's bull.

The 2 parts they complained about are:
1. BOV - which technically only changes the tone of your waste. No real performance enhancement.
2. The pollution could be due to an aftermarket Cat? Which again can't really be put down as a performance enhancement in the truest sense.

I still don't know whose fault it is but I would say if it's the other guy's fault, what's NRMA's problem they should act on your behalf and claim against the other guy!

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:26 pm
by aspir3
mmm. Very difficult these situations.

Best of luck. I am glad to hear you are ok.

Sounds like the other driver will be ok as well.

These issues can take some time and money to resolve.

Unfortunately you can be up the creek without a paddle if you do not have the money to take your insurance company to court.

I would suggest you get a lawyer to write your insurance company straight away to scare them into paying out your claim.

Show them you are not going to muck around and possible sue for damages.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:32 pm
by Speedie
Have you told MRT that thier zorst pollution emission exceeded that RTA's requirement? If NRMA refuses your claim because of pollution emissions I'd be seeing Brett for compensation

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:59 pm
by l0n3w01f
well... Dejan... feel sorry for you man... my guess is that it really depends on how serious the damages are... i mean i just got in a car accident too(got rear ended), my rear bumper and my exhaust was competely smashed due the the lexus driver claim that he wasn't watching the road so he hit my rear at around 60km/h... guess the damage there

and also... i have an aftermarket exhaust that WASN'T registered with AAMI i was also scared that they will refuse my claim... and just to let u know... my exhaust is also illegal since it is too loud...

but with a little luck i still got my claim through since it was the other person's fault... but they just repaired the exhaust instead of replacing it...

so in other word, if i can claim my exhaust without registering it... i don't see why they wouldn't claim yours when as offy said that BOVs doesn't give any gain what so ever... but any how... GL with everything

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:03 pm
by SirGalantHad
I knew somebody who had an at fault accident with bald tyres and they claimed fine. it wasn't a write off but significant damage. all the best dejan mate, hope it all gets sorted for you because i'm sure youre missing your lancer already

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:04 pm
by sabrelli
You should be alright mate.

The only thing in NRMA Product Disclosure statement which might affect your claim is "your vehicle is not in a condition that meets registration requirements in your State or Territory" under "Responsibilities when insured with us"

But you have a newish car which doesn't require a pink slip so there's no problem on getting your car registered.

Also, the other driver caused the accident so im not sure why NRMA is already taking that stance since they would have no problem seeking recovery against the Holden driver.

You have also your mods listed so its not like they can ping you on non-disclosure.

Maybe some claims noob was working on your claim.

I work in the insurance industry and our brokerage is always reversing declined claims due to the carelessness of the claims consultant.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:08 pm
by bd-850
maybe thay are being a pain because its a "hoons" car

Exhaust, as Speedie said go see MRT

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:05 pm
by billyboy
Thats bad, if they are written in your policy & were not a factor in causing the accident then I'd challenge them on it. Maybe the assessor isnt aware that the mods are covered?

Good luck with it, I'm with NRMA as well & just the other week a Kia van ran in the back of me in traffic - a foreign student driving a hire car :shock:

So far so good, told me to get my car fixed & they will pursue him. Getting a new rear bumper next week.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:51 pm
by shamrockshirts
Holy cow mate, glad you walked away, thats the main thing. Make sure you get some pics up when you can. It might not be as bad as you think.

Regarding the BOV. I've never heard such BS in all my life... Generally the reason why they will not honour a claim legally is if non declared parts where a direct cause of the accidient.

Plus aren't you supposed to be the innocent party here???? The only other reason I can see for a claim refusal this early is if drinking/drugs where a factor.

From what you're telling us he has crossed onto your side of the road therefore you've had right of way.. So the blame lies with him and you have nothing to worry about. The NRMA will pursue his insurance company if he was at fault.

After my write off I had non declared performance exhaust fitted and they didn't care even when I made them aware of it as I was not the party at fault and was not a contributing factor in the crash.

The only other reason I can see why they may refuse a claim like this is 'IF" YOU ARE AT FAULT. Technically your car is unroadworthy if you have an atmospheric dumping BOV fitted..... therefore you shouldn't have been on the road period. If thats the case they are pursuing it sounds like they are looking a way out of paying any claim and are blaming you for the accident.

Hope this helps
Cheers
John

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:15 pm
by The X
shamrockshirts wrote:Holy cow mate, glad you walked away, thats the main thing. Make sure you get some pics up when you can. It might not be as bad as you think.

Regarding the BOV. I've never heard such BS in all my life... Generally the reason why they will not honour a claim legally is if non declared parts where a direct cause of the accidient.


I was gonna say the same thing, I can only assume that any insurer can refuse a claim if the illegal/non-standard/undeclared/whatever mod was directly implicated as a cause/contributing factor to the accident. However I don't see how a BOV would any direct correlation to the event. Lawyer up and scare them into honouring the claim. Insurance companies prey on the uninformed to wriggle out of claims, it's a business and the more they can get in premiums and the less they have to fork out in claims the better for their business.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:26 pm
by Jim G
VRX_Pete wrote:
shamrockshirts wrote:Holy cow mate, glad you walked away, thats the main thing. Make sure you get some pics up when you can. It might not be as bad as you think.

Regarding the BOV. I've never heard such BS in all my life... Generally the reason why they will not honour a claim legally is if non declared parts where a direct cause of the accidient.


I was gonna say the same thing, I can only assume that any insurer can refuse a claim if the illegal/non-standard/undeclared/whatever mod was directly implicated as a cause/contributing factor to the accident. However I don't see how a BOV would any direct correlation to the event. Lawyer up and scare them into honouring the claim. Insurance companies prey on the uninformed to wriggle out of claims, it's a business and the more they can get in premiums and the less they have to fork out in claims the better for their business.


The "illegal" modifications don't necessarily have to directly relate to the accident - insurance companies often have a clause stating that you must keep your car in a condition so as to meet the road registration rules (having nothing to do with the age of the car and whether it actually HAS to be inspected or not - it just has to meet the requirements) and failure to meet those requirements may void your policy. Check the wording - even go over it with a lawyer.

Nothing to do with being at-fault or not - it's purely between you and the policy wording.

OP: Good luck getting this sorted. My car was written off by NRMA a couple of years ago and the assessor said at the time that their policy was to write off anything that had a repair cost greater than 70% of the insured value.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:40 pm
by The X
Jim G wrote:The "illegal" modifications don't necessarily have to directly relate to the accident - insurance companies often have a clause stating that you must keep your car in a condition so as to meet the road registration rules (having nothing to do with the age of the car and whether it actually HAS to be inspected or not - it just has to meet the requirements) and failure to meet those requirements may void your policy. Check the wording - even go over it with a lawyer.

Nothing to do with being at-fault or not - it's purely between you and the policy wording.


Whilst I agree with what you're saying from a legal viewpoint, it is indeed what you have agreed to in the PDS from the insurer. I think in this case, NRMA won't be as inclined to refuse the claim as the OP was not at fault at NRMA will be reimbursed from the at-fault driver's insurer. So there is hope. In the instance if the OP was at fault, insurers can dig their heels in on the most trivial of issues to avoid paying out.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:49 pm
by aspir3
VRX_Pete wrote:
Jim G wrote:The "illegal" modifications don't necessarily have to directly relate to the accident - insurance companies often have a clause stating that you must keep your car in a condition so as to meet the road registration rules (having nothing to do with the age of the car and whether it actually HAS to be inspected or not - it just has to meet the requirements) and failure to meet those requirements may void your policy. Check the wording - even go over it with a lawyer.

Nothing to do with being at-fault or not - it's purely between you and the policy wording.


Whilst I agree with what you're saying from a legal viewpoint, it is indeed what you have agreed to in the PDS from the insurer. I think in this case, NRMA won't be as inclined to refuse the claim as the OP was not at fault at NRMA will be reimbursed from the at-fault driver's insurer. So there is hope. In the instance if the OP was at fault, insurers can dig their heels in on the most trivial of issues to avoid paying out.


You may be right but have you thought the other vehicle is also insured with NRMA?