Beware of the trap in NRMA Comprehensive insurance policy

KangarooOz on 24/12/2013 - 12:23

I just had a small car accident where another party is at fault. I have a NRMA comprehensive insurance policy and I thought NRMA would claim against the party at fault on behalf of me. That’s not the case. NRMA said the repair cost is less than your excess ($2000) and you will need to take your own action to against the party at fault.

I had a AAMI comprehensive insurance before and AAMI was happy to claim against other party even though the cost is under my excess for a similar case.

If you selected a high excess option to reduce the premium for NRMA comprehensive insurance, you are taking your own risk if the damage is less than your excess while another party is a fault.

Automotive

Related Stores

NRMA Insurance
NRMA Insurance

Comments

  • Daabido on 24/12/2013 - 13:33
    +4

    Not good at all. Thanks for the heads up.

  • c64 on 24/12/2013 - 15:50
    +3

    not really comprehensive is it then …

  • MiCCAS on 24/12/2013 - 15:57
    +3

    Hey Uniwon,

    That doesn't sound right at all - I would contact NRMA again and escalate or contact the ombudsman.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2013 - 16:02
    +11

    Ask them where this exclusion is stated in the policy booklet ( http://www.nrma.com.au/sites/default/files/NRMA-Documents/NR… )

    If they say

    Page 23, 'Things that may affect cover' "not covered … loss or damage less than any applicable excesses"

    argue that there is no applicable excess as the other party are totally at fault, as stated on page 28, 'When an excess does not apply'.

    If need be, escalate as per page 39.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/12/2013 - 18:01

      "….and the amount of the claim is more than any basic excess"

      • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2013 - 04:27
        +1

        Ah, there's the catch - OP does say they "selected a high excess option to reduce the premium".

        Page 35, "Choice of Excess Discount allows you to reduce your premium by selecting a higher basic excess. The excess you choose is shown as your basic excess on your current Certificate of Insurance".

        My brother was dissuaded from making such a not-at-fault claim, however the bulk of his excess was an age excess, so they settled his claim after a bit of back and forth.

  • stemcell on 24/12/2013 - 18:09
    +3

    This is exactly what catches people out when they move to cheap insurance, youi "we get you"…..I'm sure they will if I had to claim. Im with AAMI and cannot speak highly enough of them.

    I don't understand if its not your fault why do you have the excess to pay?, last year with AMII we had a non fault accident and had to pay nothing even though the other party was uninsured.

    • tomclancy on 26/12/2013 - 00:06

      In Youi's defence, I've had three cars insured by them and made two claims (one at fault and one not at fault) both went through without any hassle.

      I genuinely don't think Youi are in the same bucket as Bingle, Coles, BudgetDirect, NRMA et al

      • Vallani on 13/01/2014 - 15:28

        I boycott Youi on the basis of their shitty and annoying website, refusing to give you a quote online and making you speak to one of the telesales agents.

        • tomclancy on 13/01/2014 - 22:23

          You can get a quote online

  • tko6070 on 24/12/2013 - 18:10
    +1

    If the other party is at fault wouldn't they pay the excess and get your vehicle repaired? and why would you want to pay the excess if repairing it is cheaper for you? I don't understand the logic.

    • kwaker on 25/12/2013 - 07:47

      No the nrma try to screw them over for everything full amount plus everything else they can try to put on e.g towing, holding fees, car rental, accomodation, meals etc - which they are not neccesarily entitled to but some people just pay up without thought/question.

      If they are insured (and choose to use it) then they pay their insurer their policy excess.

      They don't pay your insurer your policy excess.

      • pumpkinspice on 14/01/2014 - 10:29

        It's not screwing them over, if it's costs incurred from the accident then they're entitled to it.
        I'm not sure about meals, never heard of anyone being asked to pay for that.

        But towing costs, yes. Car rental, yes. These are costs incurred due to someone causing an accident.

        I don't like insurance companies (I used to work for one), but if I caused an accident with you and you need a rental car for work, family, whatever, I don't think it would be fair that you're out of pocket several hundred dollars because I didn't pay attention to what I was doing.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2013 - 21:36

    Don't you just pay the larger excess if you want it fixed…

    That's how it works..

    Furthermore, if the fault is not yours and you are absolutely sure it won't backfire, "You pay the excess first", then upon the findings, it should be refunded. Shouldn't it? Maybe NRMA is different.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/12/2013 - 22:07

    It's to stop small insignificant claims. Makes you chase the other person or not bother at all. Otherwise people would claim 20 times a year for trolley dings at the shopping center.

    Something they don't make know known when you reduce your annual policy by increasing the excess.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2013 - 04:58
      +1

      It's to stop small insignificant claims.

      Under $600 sure, but a $1,800 not-at-fault claim isn't insignificant (and would be one hell of a trolley ding).

      As OP points out, this is something that drivers, perhaps careful ones who have never had an at-fault accident, that are tempted by the higher 'basic excess' might not find out until attempting to claim.

    • pumpkinspice on 14/01/2014 - 10:37

      The trolley thing is irrelevant in this case as they know whom they're claiming from.
      Excesses in general are to stop small claims, but I would argue with trolley damage 99.99% of the time no-one knows who hit their car with a trolley, so the insurance company would be out of pocket for repairs.

      While that may sound selfish of the insurance company, you need to understand that the price people collectively pay per year needs to cover the cost of repairs for all the claims that the insurance company is liable for… plus wages of everyone who works for the company, advertising, etc.
      So if we all claimed for trolley damage every time it happened, we would very quickly end up paying $3000-$6000 per year for insurance.

      In OP's case this is completely different, they know who to claim from and a major company like NRMA should help them with this.

  • kwaker on 25/12/2013 - 07:35

    did you even attempt discussing with the other party?

  • srhardy on 25/12/2013 - 11:17

    Cant you do what they say and write/lodge a claim against his insurance, they should remimberse you the excess directly once you supply the receipt of payment (proof the money was spent/paid) & your written justice of the peace affidavit that you was not at fault. But also escalate it with NRMA, they SHOULD be doing this for you as its usaly argued and settled directly between insurance companies (but it docent have to be)

  • virtuousd on 25/12/2013 - 11:28

    For small claims it's just a matter of contacting the other party to organise pay for repair costs.

    If you have their rego details at least, you can contact the other insurer instead. Although yes it is quite a stretch.

  • mini2 on 25/12/2013 - 12:23
    +2

    …..but my question is, why the heck would you be nominating a $2k excess?

    • humdingaling on 13/01/2014 - 15:18

      unlisted under 25 year old are usually in that bracket

      • mini2 on 13/01/2014 - 17:19

        Unlisted is one thing but by the sound of it, the OP purposely nominated it so that's a different thing altogether…

  • Aceboy884 on 25/12/2013 - 22:44
    +2

    Insurance is there to protect you against unforeseen problem

    Thanks for pointing this out, I better check my insurance in case crap like this is hidden in the contract

  • andyken on 25/12/2013 - 23:25

    just go to panel beater who dealt with insurance, in my case, i told them is their fault and they will do the rest as long as you have his/her driver license and car plate number with you

  • ankor on 26/12/2013 - 10:12

    My brother had a similar issue with NRMA after he was rear-ended. They wanted to repair it, but there was a dispute over whether the repairs would address the full extent of the damage that was incurred on the vehicle.

    He ended up without a car for almost 2months because the damage assessor was an ass about it. I would never ever recommend NRMA to anyone as a result, and neither will he. He ended up going through the insurer of the at-fault person and getting the car written off so he would be able to get one of the same class/size.

    Also, if you have your jewellery insured, make sure that you check your fine print. Some of these insurers don't give you the $$ value of your jewellery, but instead they happen to have their own jewellers remake what has been lost/stolen.

    • mini2 on 27/12/2013 - 10:50

      "He ended up without a car for almost 2months"

      The reason why I've kept a spare car registered. The amount of cars in my little fleet and the extra $ NRMA wanted for the loan car inclusion in the policy cost more than keeping that pile of crap registered.

  • megadeth on 26/12/2013 - 13:44

    Have made two non-fault claims with Allianz in the last three years without having to pay any excess.

    But just changed to NRMA last year as they turned out cheaper for the same insurance package (cover level, excess etc).

    Thought non-fault party never has to pay any excess.

    • kwaker on 27/12/2013 - 01:04

      Wow you seem to get in a lot of accidents: 3 in 3.

      • megadeth on 06/01/2014 - 02:06
        +2

        Lols. Think I drive with a magnet at the rear of my car.

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 06/01/2014 - 11:17

    Something I also found out with NRMA comprehensive insurance was that if your car was more than 2 years old when damaged, then the NRMA will use use second hand parts to fix your car (where it can)!! I didn't believe it, but it's in there in the PDS (pg 30)!!

    • snappy1234 on 08/01/2014 - 20:26

      Actually i know its kind of weird but i had a branch fall on a vehicle of mine years ago, the parts were new
      but i wished they had used secondhand as it never really matched the 8yo vehicle. :)

    • mini2 on 08/01/2014 - 21:30

      Yeah well unless they stipulate only brand new genuine parts are used, I'd prefer used parts off the same make and model over pattern/non-genuine any day of the week. Keep in mind they're putting these terms in the PDS to protect themselves in the event that they can't get brand new parts for your car (this does happen).

      Last couple of times NRMA/Buzz approved brand new genuine parts without batting an eyelid. I suspect this may be influenced by the repairer as well. IIRC IAG also has their own parts shop (I'm using this term loosely) to supply parts needed for the repairs.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join