Third Party, Fire, Theft, Malicious Damage & Windscreen Car Insurance $125 (my quote)

wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 12:31
Last edited 30/12/2013 - 15:02

Shopped around for a standard third party policy and found this. I've never seen windscreen cover outside a comprehensive policy before.

Until Feb 2nd you get a $100 fuel gift card and you also get an additional 4 cents per litre off at Woolies petrol outlets (well, not Tasmanians, which stinks)*.

My quote for third party policy was about $169, adding malicious damage & fire took it to $175 odd, windscreen cover was only another $45 odd. Around $225 total (for me). So $125 after the fuel card is taken off. My last windscreen was $675.

*Edited due to the change from $50 fuel card to $100. I think they dropped the 4 cent per litre thing.

Automotive

Related Stores

Woolworths

Comments

mily on 19/12/2013 - 12:43

+2

Price will be different for everyone, so I reckon it should stay out of the title. You point is the combination of windscreen and 3rd party cover plus a $50 fuel card.
- wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 13:06
  
  I gave my case in the description. Everyone has a different quote.
- wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 13:15
  
  Also the malicious damage. I haven't seen that before either.
  - kryptoz on 21/12/2013 - 15:59
    
    'malicious damage' should cover vandalism, and cover you in the (common) event that your car is parked somewhere and gets busted into, so some junkie can knock off your GPS and loose change. so insurance will pay for window replacement, which is usually the biggest cost, but not the stolen contents. you just have to pay the excess which could be up to $2000, which is most likely much more than the repair & replacement costs. if you're not on a more expensive policy with a low excess, it is very unlikely you will ever claim on that part of the policy.
bargaino on 19/12/2013 - 12:44

+2

please fix the heading with the actual price paid.
- wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 13:11
  
  Not enough room to explain the whole deal in the title so I paraphrased. It's explained in the description.
Raynes on 19/12/2013 - 12:59

+1

Bit more than that for me
- GravyNanna on 19/12/2013 - 13:07
  
  -1
  
  Comprehensive is quite different to third party
  - tomclancy on 19/12/2013 - 14:10
    
    Check again, his third party was $417
ElectroGhoul on 19/12/2013 - 13:00

+1

Waste of time for me, it was double what I currently pay.
- tomclancy on 19/12/2013 - 14:16
  
  More than double what I pay currently. Not a deal (and no shocker that it wasn't)
51ngh on 19/12/2013 - 13:08

My last windscreen was $675

You took out a $175 TPP for a car whose windscreen costs $675.
I hope you don't learn a hard lesson.
- wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 13:13
  
  +2
  
  That's my decision. I personally think insurance is communism for profit. :-)
  - snook on 19/12/2013 - 13:39
    
    +1
    
    lol, it's capitalism at its worst.
    
    Capitalists protect the rich (themselves), who own the insurance companies.
    They don't protect anyone else, so those that have a little something have to get insurance to be in some way protected from those who have nothing (to lose). Without this extreme inequality capitalists can not benefit from insurance company shares and make themselves richer.
    
    If it were communism, we would all be driving the same cars with the same windscreens and no one would be gaining anything or have nothing to lose.
    - bargaino on 19/12/2013 - 13:52
      
      those that have a little something have to get insurance to be in some way protected from those who have nothing (to lose).
      
      Nah, that's backwards. We are talking about TPP here. Its to protect the poor from being bankrupted when they crash into the rich.
      I can afford to replace my crappy old car, but not the new S-class I run into :)
    - kwaker on 19/12/2013 - 14:03
      
      +1
      
      No manic it was right the first time. If your poor there is no need to get insurance, they can't collect anything from you.
      
      Unlikely they will pursue bankruptcy as there is no purpose no gain and will leave them worse off. Won't make much difference to you if your genuinely poor.
    - snook on 19/12/2013 - 14:44
      
      yeah that's it, if you have nothing - you have nothing.
      
      If you have a little something to protect, you need insurance but the only people benefiting from you paying for that insurance, are the rich and those with nothing who steal from you. But of course, those that steal from you (let's also call this malicious damage) are a benefit to the rich because, without them there would be no need for insurance.
      
      If you are rich, you have nothing to worry about.
      If you have nothing, you have nothing to worry about.
      
      If you have a little, you have to worry about everything and you then have legal & illegal thieves. For all practical purposes, they are the exact same thing. This is free market capitalism. Take what you can, any way you can take it.
- snook on 19/12/2013 - 13:48
  
  Could just be an older car. It's all about availability. I had a 17 year old car, nothing special and worth nothing, windscreen about the same price.
georgedn on 19/12/2013 - 13:43

maybe you got a good price because you drive a lemon?
- shadowarrior on 19/12/2013 - 14:05
  
  Wouldn't that increase his quote? Since he has high chances of crashing onto someone since he is driving a lemon? :P
shadowarrior on 19/12/2013 - 14:02

It says I save if I choose Drive Less Pay Less option…but can't see any place where I can choose it.
$290 for just third party without fire/theft/windscreen etc on a $5000 agreed value 99 Pajero. :|
- [Deactivated] on 20/12/2013 - 11:22
  
  Gotta love the fact they can choose to pay you on either the agreed value or the market value, why don't they just always use the market value?
  - wfdTamar on 20/12/2013 - 11:47
    
    Yes, and they limit theft, fire & malicious damage to $10000.
  - kwaker on 21/12/2013 - 22:54
    
    Because they can get more money from you. Market value changes and is often not what cars sell for. Nrma would not define market value because its up to the assessor when there is an accident: which means that he could say its worth $200 if he wants.
    
    Agreed value you pay more for higher value or less for lower but you can't say your 1990's lemon is worth 10k. They tell you the max e.g market $1,800 max agreed $2,000
wfdTamar on 19/12/2013 - 14:20

I'm probably in one of the best cases for insurance - mature, in a quiet area, low km's. Really only want third party just on the off chance I prang into a Merc (though any car costs a fortune nowadays). Since the windscreen costs so much I wanted that too, but only ever seen it with comprehensive which I don't want to pay for. So this policy suits me well.

Not sure why they need to value your car for Third Party policies.

There was a spot where you state how many km's you drive per year in the initial details - maybe that's the 'Drive Less, Pay Less' thing?
- shadowarrior on 19/12/2013 - 14:35
  
  Yeah I selected that (3,000 kms per year) but didn't give me an option to say yes, reduce my premium. Am guessing 3k kms per year is considered 'Drive less'. :\
  - bruiser on 19/12/2013 - 15:01
    
    The 'Drive Less' option is only available for Comprehensive cover.
Moderatormoocher on 19/12/2013 - 14:47

Since the quote is different for everyone, this has been moved to forums.
snook on 19/12/2013 - 14:54

I belong to the CMCA which is the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia. $44 a year. I don't know if you have to have a legitimate mobile home to be a member but they have the cheapest insurance I've seen via a broker who uses Wesfarmers.
- Daabido on 19/12/2013 - 20:19
  
  Cheaper than Coles insurance, which is also Wesfarmers and is undercutting to gain market share? That's a genuine question, not trying to be a smart a.
  - snook on 19/12/2013 - 20:58
    
    Huge apologies, the broker, Ken Tame, now uses Allianz Australia Limited not Wesfarmers. Way cheaper than Coles.
    
    Example: $60k campervan with Ken Tame = $752 (and this after a total loss via a stolen vehicle)
    Coles / Wesfarmers (who surprisingly Ken Tame used to use) wants $1,520 to insure for $34k
    Rip off much?
    
    This should tell you that if you're using Coles/Wesfarmers, you're being had. If you read reviews, the service is also shocking. That was my experience when I rang them - tits on a bull.
    
    My normal car is also insured with them.
    - Cheeper on 20/12/2013 - 15:37
      
      +1 for the Coles insurance reputation.
      It's OK if all you want a cheap premium but if you want insurance with that then do some research.
AJW on 20/12/2013 - 16:08

Thanks OP, I have used several sites and this provided me with the cheapest quote for the particular deal I was after :)
goosegog on 20/12/2013 - 16:21

We have 5 cars - ridiculous I know for 2 people!! We always insure through Shannons with a limited mileage policy. However they will only insure if you own cars that they consider - i.e. a friend tried to insure her new Mazda 4x4 & was told they would not cover it - she was not impressed.Ours are a Mercedes sports,Jaguar x308, Subaru outback H6, Subaru liberty ( old & the dogs car for going to the park, worth nothing )The only one we could not insure with them was my husbands Landcruiser as it has to have business insurance so are going through AAMI instead. We've only had to make a claim once when a young idiot plowed into our car at a junction. Shannons were brilliant - arranged towing & paid claim very swiftly -cannot fault them.
- shadowarrior on 22/12/2013 - 16:18
  
  Agreed. +1 for Shannons. I use Shannons now for my two cars and motorbike, was thinking of shifting one of the cars to a third party since it doesn't get driven much. But Shannon's quality of service and ease of claims is worth every penny I pay for the premium.
  Also they were the only one who would insure one of my imports along with it's mods.
Geewhizz on 21/12/2013 - 06:52

If you have an older car, do yourself a favour and check out the cost for BOTH 3rd party and comprehensive if you're shopping for insurance.

Early this year hubby purchased an '87 Diahatsu Move just to get him to work and back, and when we looked into insurance the comprehensive cover was $30 less than 3rd party.
MrGareth on 21/12/2013 - 11:39

I gave it a try. The basic third party rate for me was $30 a month, which went up to $35 a month if I selected all the boxes (except for collision).

RACV quoted me $35 for third party, fire and theft. I guess I need to read the fine print on the Woolies deal, do see what "natural causes" and malicious damage really covers, compared to RACV.

Also I noted on the Woolies "collision bit"… if you don't select it, it says any collision, even if you're not at fault, isn't covered. I always thought that even with third party, if someone else hits and it's their fault, and they're insured, then your insurance company will sort it out for you?
- rewstar on 21/12/2013 - 18:48
  
  The "collision bit" might be for if an uninsured driver hits you you will be covered up to a certain amount.
  - MrGareth on 21/12/2013 - 21:16
    
    Not quite - if you select the collision box, then the price jumps up to the full comprehensive price - so I assume that means if you select all the boxes it becomes full comprehensive. Looks like there's a bit of fine print to wade through and I'd have to ring them up and ask them some questions before I switched over :)
    - kwaker on 21/12/2013 - 22:59
      
      Don't just ring and ask. Get any info in writing because when it comes to paying up stories change.
wfdTamar on 30/12/2013 - 15:04

They changed the fuel card to $100 instead of $50 and dropped the 4 cent discount thing. Bargain (for me).
onlyletters on 09/01/2014 - 10:26
Thats funny, when you select the 'make your own' quote, you get extras, see below;

What's included as standard

Lifetime guarantee on repairs by approved repairer Lock and key replacement Replacement of new car in the first 12 months of insurance Personal property cover Child seat and pram cover Towing Emergency travel and accomodation Substitute car – TPPD cover Essential repairs
- onlyletters on 09/01/2014 - 10:33
  
  Further to this, if you select the 'Third Party Property Damage' option, it gets rid of them all and gives you only;
  
  What's included as standard
  
  Substitute car – TPPD cover Essential repairs Uninsured motorist damage
  
  The one that I find most important is the 'Uninsured motorist damage'.
  
  Shouldn't this come as standard on the 'Make your Own' quote?
onlyletters on 09/01/2014 - 10:55

I did the drive less pay less option for comprehensive insurance because my wife doesn't drive much (4,000kms per day), its going to cost me $64 per month with the lowest excess of $500 and the cover amount of $9,100.

I'd rather pay monthly just in case I find a better deal elsewhere. I was previously paying AAMI $41 per month for third party cover so this is a bargain and its good it also comes with a fuel card, this will come in handy.

If I exceed 4,000kms, I will tell them and they will adjust my monthly premium.
- Geewhizz on 14/01/2014 - 06:39
  
  my wife doesn't drive much (4,000kms per day)
  
  When was the last time she slept? lol
  - onlyletters on 14/01/2014 - 07:58
    
    very good lol its actually per year

Third Party, Fire, Theft, Malicious Damage & Windscreen Car Insurance $125 (my quote)

Related Stores

Comments

New Forum Topics