Weapon of choice

[firestorm]

Recently a series of news articles and events led me to ask this question:
Would your insurance company cover you if you were forced to have to use your vehicle as a weapon of self defence in order to disable another vehicle?

Consider this hypothetical:
You are driving down the road when you notice a car load of angry looking individuals tailgating you. They produce iron bars and baseball bats and it is obvious that their anger is aimed at you. You might have cut them off without realising it, or you may have been singled out, who knows. You are alone in your car and clearly out numbered. What do you do? The traffic lights ahead turn red and pedestrians begin to cross ahead of you. You are trapped. You realise that the only weapon of defence that you have at your disposal is the vehicle you are driving. As your speed slows to a near stop you slam your car into reverse and plough full throttle into the car behind in an attempt to disable it. It’s occupants sit there temporarily stunned. You notice the delay in their reaction and immediately take advantage of the situation. You ram it again for a second time. This time an abundance of steam is evident indicating that you have successfully disabled the offending vehicle. The shocked pedestrians have scattered consequently creating an escape route ahead of you, which of course you capitalise on.

While this may seem like a drastic situation, the fact is that more and more innocent motorists are falling victim to serious road rage. Let’s just say that your insurance company pays up in this situation. The cost to you would probably be that you would loose your no claims bonus, pay an excess, and cop a neg driving charge and maybe one or two other fines such as leaving the scene of an accident etc. A rather cost effective form of self defence in my opinion, especially if you operate your own business in which case some of these costs can be written off on tax.

While all this may be well and good in theory, the bottom line is this: Anyone who is crazy enough to willingly destroy their own vehicle in order to defend themselves is probably a lot crazier than their attackers, giving rise to the old saying “Never with someone who is crazier than you are”.

How crazy are you?

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Any one for a cuppa ?

[LTDHO]

Read your policy! It will tell you yes or no.

RACV Policy
we will not cover loss or damage
*caused intentionally by you.
*caused by or arising from any hostilities, rebellion, riot, civil commotion or war.

[dansedgli]

Ouch so all the damage that happened last night by the thugs is not covered under RACV? Thats gotta suck for everyone in Sydney ATM,

[LTDHO]

I'd say that most in NSW are insured with NRMA who have a similar policy.

[Gunns]

Originally Posted by Blue Oval Mopar Man

Any one for a cuppa ?

I want that tea pot!

[davocol]

Who declares the situation as a riot? Surely not the insurance company, I would think they would be covered. It cant be something that the media decides on. I would say it would need to be in writing from the police or government before they would not pay out based on riots. Back to the original question, you would be at fault.

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Read your policy! It will tell you yes or no.

RACV Policy
we will not cover loss or damage
*caused intentionally by you.
*caused by or arising from any hostilities, rebellion, riot, civil commotion or war.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by davocol

Who declares the situation as a riot? Surely not the insurance company, I would think they would be covered. It cant be something that the media decides on. I would say it would need to be in writing from the police or government before they would not pay out based on riots. Back to the original question, you would be at fault.

"Back in the day" i believe it was the state government's responsibility to declare something a disaster/riot etc for the insurance company to knock the claim back.

Not so anymore.

I was looking at a workmate's policy wording today as we were discussing something along these lines. Have a look at the definition of terrorism in your policy (standard exclusion in pretty much all forms of insurance). It describes situations arising from a group or individual targeting another group based on race/religion with the intention of creating fear/pressuring a government.

Mopar man - white with two, thanks.

[gozza]

buy a tank