Insurance Claim Gone Sour

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

So how would it be my fault that some idiot ran a trolley down the side of my car?

You are confusing the terms "at fault" and "not at fault"

They are simply an insurance term.
Examples of "at Fault" claims are
Stolen Cars (unless you can identify the thief and they are charged and convicted because there is no third party to recover from)
Hitting an Animal that wandered in front of you (the insurance comapny will not get any money if they sue skippy)
Your car being hit up the back and the third party does a runner without you getting any info, (no third party to recover from)

The best definition of having to pay an excess is :
ANY claim where you are unable to identify the third party at fault.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Yaw

You are confusing the terms "at fault" and "not at fault"

They are simply an insurance term.
Examples of "at Fault" claims are
Stolen Cars (unless you can identify the thief and they are charged and convicted because there is no third party to recover from)
Hitting an Animal that wandered in front of you (the insurance comapny will not get any money if they sue skippy)
Your car being hit up the back and the third party does a runner without you getting any info, (no third party to recover from)

The best definition of having to pay an excess is :
ANY claim where you are unable to identify the third party at fault.

Sorry I should have made it more clear. The insurance co. was trying to say I was "at fault" and wanted to raise my premium. That is what ИИИИed me off.

[EBII Fairmont]

Originally Posted by Yaw

What are you talking about??????????????????????
Going to the Ombudsman is FREE, no charge, not a brass razoo to you.
It does however cost the insurance company minimum $4000.00
by the time you look at the ombudsmans charges (they charge the company not the plaintif and that is true win lose or draw, The insuarnce company has to pay wages to people to set out thier case actually go to the ombudsman etc etc) So by the time a claim gets to the ombudsman the insuance company will have thier bases covered otherwise they would have just paid out as it clearly seems the cheaper option if they do not think they are right.
If after the ombudsman you decide to take it further (if the ombudman finds in favor of the insrance company) its time to take a chill pill and let it go because the Obudsman has to use all relevant contracts, eveidence, laws and acts to make its descion. After all that its pretty safe to say you won't win in court either.

I agree that if the ombudsmen find that my dad is in the wrong, then we will pay the excess. But I would rather see this go to court. The simple reason is that both the insurance company and the other party as I stated earlier, will get done for other offences which have been committed since the incident. I know and understand that the ombudsmen are free, but if it is taken to court, this insurance company will get stung more than $4,000. I really wanna make this insurance company pay for thinking they can just kick me around.

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by EBII Fairmont

I agree that if the ombudsmen find that my dad is in the wrong, then we will pay the excess. But I would rather see this go to court. The simple reason is that both the insurance company and the other party as I stated earlier, will get done for other offences which have been committed since the incident. I know and understand that the ombudsmen are free, but if it is taken to court, this insurance company will get stung more than $4,000. I really wanna make this insurance company pay for thinking they can just kick me around.

Uhmmm NO they won't.
Either way if the third party is with the same insurer they get to fix both cars anyway. You are mixing up traffic law which is not a criminal offence (incedently) with civil law which is what you would need to go through if you plan to sue. Even if admitted in a civil court the other was at fault it will not mean the other party will be fined or found guilty of any kind of neglagent driving. Those types of charges need to go through traffic court.
And for you to think the insurance company may get fined for breaches of the insurance act or any other act as an outcome of a civil suit won't happen as it would be the ACCC to bring those kind of charges in a corparte type proceeding.

Also don't get mixed up between what the attending cop or police reports say, Quite often police do not understand liabilty issues nor are they able to assign fault or blame. Just because someone did something ileagle does not always make them liable.