Car Insurance Company Denying Claim Due to Undisclosed Licence Suspension

Lsalmon90 on 27/07/2018 - 18:23
Last edited 28/07/2018 - 17:49 by 1 other user

A friend had a car accident in his pride and joy a couple weeks ago (at fault) which resulted in approx $20K worth of damage to his car and the other car.
Was very unfortunate, the other car was speeding around a tight corner as he pulled out from the kerb, anyway, he accepted fault because at the end of the day, he felt he was in the wrong. - This is not the problem.

The problem is that his insurance company (Progressive) is refusing to payout for not disclosing a previous suspension. On his policy he stated he had no suspensions in the last 5 years, but he forgot about one that happened in 2014.

Before you jump to conclusions, the suspension was a mixup due to a unpaid $100 parking fine. When he became aware of the fine and suspension, he paid immediately back in 2014 to fix it up.

The insurance company asked him for a copy of his driving history, which he paid for and provided, didn't think anything of it, but now they have the evidence, and are saying it voids his insurance and would not have insured him if he had disclosed the suspension.

What are the options?

Automotive

Comments

  • 87percent on 27/07/2018 - 18:26
    +53

    Yeah, lawyer up…

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 27/07/2018 - 18:28

      This^^

      • R-Man on 27/07/2018 - 19:02
        +10

        Insured person was dishonest by saying they had 0 suspensions in the last 5 years.
        Insurer decides to void the policy based on this revelation.

        Suspension in 2014 was due to an unpaid fine which was then paid after licence holder became aware of the suspension.

        What's a lawyer going to do?

        • JimmyF on 27/07/2018 - 19:10
          +17

          declining paying the insurance due to a parking fine that has nothing to do with driving skills, its very very very harsh!

        • akyeeeahdude on 27/07/2018 - 19:12
          +15

          Yes, agreed, lawyer won't do much (in terms of the insurer).

          Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act is the relevant section to be concerned about. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica1984220…

          As Progressive would have never insured the party, should they have disclosed the correct information at the time of purchasing the policy, the insurer can avoid the policy.

          Which now turns in to your friend being liable for the damage to the other parties car (and his own).

          This is one situation that I have seen the Financial Ombudsman side with the insurer on time and time again. It's pretty clean cut.

          *Not legal advice.

          EDIT - There is a small hail Mary that may help - PM me if you want to know more.

        • Almost Banned on 27/07/2018 - 20:18
          +7

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: On what exactly do you base this opinion?

        • R-Man on 27/07/2018 - 21:32
          +5

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: lol well baited m8

        • altomic on 27/07/2018 - 22:50
          +15

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Law does not come down to reason . Law comes down to rules.

          The application of law can be varied by those who have authority to do so in certain circumstances- i.e. working within in the rules -e.g. loopholes.

          it does not matter that it "…sounds unreasonable of the insurance company".

          The insurance is following their law - the one which you (or the OPs friend) agreed to abide by when entering into a contract.

          the contract recognised as legally binding by a government legislative body, as authorised by the government with the authority to do that. etc.

          a lawyer would not have a great chance of winning this case.

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 08:07
          +3

          @JimmyF:

          a parking fine that has nothing to do with driving skills,

          Driving skills includes the driver’s knowledge of the road rules. A driver cannot drive safely on public roads if they don’t understand or know what rules applies to a particular road scenario.

        • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 09:09
          +4

          @whooah1979:

          A driver cannot drive safely on public roads if they don’t understand or know what rules applies to a particular road scenario.

          hahaha pull the other one. Over staying by 10 mins in a 1 hr parking zone resulting in a fine, must mean they are a menace on the roads!

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 10:25
          -2

          @JimmyF:

          a menace on the roads

          Op has stated that their friend’s licence were suspended. It takes in most cases 12 demerit points to get a suspension. A driver that may accumulate 12 demerits point is an unsafe driver.

        • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 10:38
          +6

          @whooah1979:

          Op has stated that their friend’s licence were suspended

          They said

          the suspension was a mixup due to a unpaid $100 parking fine

          Number of points has nothing to do with it in NSW it seems for unpaid fines.

          http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/lawassist…

          SO yes, its harsh

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 10:42
          -3

          @JimmyF:

          Over staying by 10 mins in a 1 hr parking zone resulting in a fine,

          Over staying by 10 mins in a parking zone in nsw isn’t an offence that includes demerit points unless there are other parking restrictions in that zone.
          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=demeritpo…

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 11:02
          +1

          @JimmyF:

          Number of points has nothing to do with it in NSW it seems for unpaid fines.

          http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/lawassist…

          Thanks for the link.

          It sounds like op’s friend were suspended due to unpaid fines. The problem with this is that they were driving >49 days with a suspended licence.

        • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 11:11
          +2

          @whooah1979:

          It sounds like op’s friend were suspended due to unpaid fines.

          Yes as the OP put in the first post. Nothing to do with points lost.

          The problem with this is that they were driving >49 days with a suspended licence.

          Yeah but lets be honest, its not what you would call a REAL suspended licence event at all, and they hadn't be aware of it. I'm sure it happens to MANY people each and every day in NSW.

          Its very harsh to cancel your insurance over a unpaid parking fine.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 28/07/2018 - 11:11

          @whooah1979: "A driver that may accumulate 12 demerits point is an unsafe driver."

          How about 11 points?

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 11:45
          +1

          @JimmyF:

          its not what you would call a REAL suspended licence event at all, and they hadn't be aware of it.

          Neither the hwp or the insurer cares how the driver get suspended. Op’s friend was lucky not to get caught driving with a suspended licence.
          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/demerits-offenc…

        • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 12:45
          +5

          @whooah1979: We'll agree to disagree.

          suspending your licence and recording it on record, all over a unpaid parking fine in the first place is just crazy.

          If you think its ok to cancel ones insurance over a unpaid parking fine that is now paid, then I do hope the same comes around and bites you one day.

          Sure suspend someones licence over the fine if they must, but once its paid, then it should be removed from your driving record. Its such a non event.

        • BestofOZB on 28/07/2018 - 14:25

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: I am afraid not! I went to court once to fight a parking fine as I stopped on a yellow line to fix the gate to my own entrance and got fined. The judge told me the law is the law and it does not know common sense, slammed me with an additional $1,700 in court fee!

          I don't see how OP can get out of this, he can lawyer up, but so will the insurer!

        • pegaxs on 28/07/2018 - 15:02
          +3

          @BestofOZB:

          Cool story, Bro… I believed it up until;

          slammed me with an additional $1,700 in court fee!

          I have been to court over a parking issue. Plead guilty. Got a reduced fine and paid court costs… of $63.

          $1,700 in court costs. What an utter load of bollocks. Unless you were a recidivist offender and this was over multiple tickets or you were calling the magistrate a (fropanity) (fropanity) son of a (fropanity)… Then no, court costs are not $1,700…

          Schedule of Magistrates court costs for Qld.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 28/07/2018 - 15:06

          @BestofOZB: Username checks out

        • whooah1979 on 28/07/2018 - 16:54

          @JimmyF:

          We’ve checks in place to ensure that we pay our bills, tolls or fines on time.

          Op’s friend wouldn’t be in this situation if they paid their bills on time.

        • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 17:00
          +7

          @whooah1979: Great for you, but sometimes bills/fines get missed. Really don't think its something that should be on your driving record.

          GASP its a unpaid parking fine that has been paid. Not a hit and run.

        • BestofOZB on 28/07/2018 - 22:34
          -2

          @pegaxs: Council's lawyer fee.

        • pegaxs on 29/07/2018 - 08:14
          +3

          @BestofOZB:

          Yep, still don’t believe you…

          Big, expensive lawyers is not what magistrates court is about. Court costs are usually fixed and in place to deter this type of lawyering up. So now it sounds like even more bollocks…

        • Daabido on 29/07/2018 - 11:37

          @whooah1979: Congratulations.

        • smartazz104 on 29/07/2018 - 19:35

          @whooah1979: Damn if that logic was actually applied there might be three people left on the road, and I bet you wouldn't be one of them.

        • foxinsox8 on 30/07/2018 - 06:45
          +1

          A lawyer might examine the history of the insurance company's "refusals to insure".

          That might reveal that a single suspension on the basis of an unpaid fine would not normally be grounds to refuse to insure.

          In reality I suspect had your friend revealed this suspension at the time of taking out the policy the insurer would have charged a higher premium and/or set a higher excess, rather than refuse to offer a policy.

        • trapper on 30/07/2018 - 17:33
          +1

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Despite all your downvotes, I actually agree.

          Why would the friend be paying his insurance premiums each month if he was aware he was not covered, I mean why pay for nothing?

          You have to assume good faith here, he thought he was covered and was forking out the cash each month like most of us are.

          We shouldn't be so quick to let big companies wriggle out of their obligations for a minor breech that is materially unrelated at all to the friends risk profile.

        • wozz on 01/08/2018 - 07:30
          +1

          @trapper:

          Too right. And our they do say they are sticking to their guns and he wasn't insured that entire period, they should refund him all his payments for the entire period he wasn't covered.

    • D6C1 on 28/07/2018 - 21:14

      I'm a lawyer. Pay me ozbargain rates :)

    • nikey2k27 on 29/07/2018 - 10:13

      why spspension was might get you a win.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 18:28
    +14

    Suspended drivers license for a $100 unpaid parking fine?

    Hmmm

    • salmon90 on 27/07/2018 - 18:33
      +7

      Yes, 100% legit, he showed me the driving history report and he found a copy of the fine.

      I blew my mind as well

      • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 18:39
        +2

        Fair enough.

        If he hasn't disclosed his driving history, which is a valid request for disclosure, then the insurer has excellent grounds for refusal to pay.

        In the case of the "mixup", it doesn't sound like much of a mixup if your friend ended up paying so it depends on whether you friend was rightly suspended or suspended in error. If the suspension was ended early but was a valid suspension, your friend would still be required to declare this to the insurer.

        TLDR - if it is truly a mixup where the suspension was issued in error, your friend has a case. If the "mixup" meant failure to pay a fine and subsequently suspended until the fine was paid, your friend has no case.

      • JimmyF on 27/07/2018 - 19:10

        What state?

  • chumlee on 27/07/2018 - 18:29
    +9

    Insurance company is legally able to refuse. Your friend needs to fight it or find a loophole

    • JimmyF on 28/07/2018 - 12:47

      legally yes, morally? Its wrong based on the reason it was suspended.

      • airzone on 28/07/2018 - 17:44
        +3

        Progressive insurance is cheap for a reason..

        • cainen on 29/07/2018 - 07:25
          +1

          My experience with Progressive has been excellent. Just saying.

        • airzone on 29/07/2018 - 17:57
          +2

          Mine has been as well. But I am diligent with my duty of disclosure. You need to understand the devil you're dealing with.

        • taoz on 30/07/2018 - 08:50

          One of the worst I’m have been with them. Will do what they can to make it hard to get repairs etc.

    • kipps on 31/07/2018 - 07:33

      I'd still push under s.54 Insurance Contracts Act to get them to cover the claim…..
      http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica198…

  • Godric on 27/07/2018 - 18:29
    +2

    3rd traffic incident post in 1 day, need more!

    • Xiaomi on 28/07/2018 - 21:13
      -2

      Have you seen the OzBargain In person Meet-up photos? That'll explain why OzB has sooo many driving advice threads…

  • EightImmortals on 27/07/2018 - 18:32
    +4

    Insurance companies are ****holes and will use ANY excuse, including undeclared speeding fines to refuse payment. As the others have said 'Lawyer up'.

    • Zachary on 28/07/2018 - 11:00
      +1

      If that's the case why pay them if they're not gonna deliver? It's no wonder why some people here don't have insurance….

      • orangetrain on 28/07/2018 - 13:50
        +3

        The insurance companies will accept anyone doing digital signatures without checking background. Once a claim is made, first thing they do is check the background of the driver. Otherwise a background check for every applicant can be costly even if they turn out to be true to their word.

        Because of this economic incentive, I have no doubt that all insurance companies will do this.

        Its immoral tho. Another insurance company may be willing to insure if the suspension was only an unpaid parking fine.

        • Zachary on 29/07/2018 - 22:21

          So I could be denied insurance claim even if the crash wasn't my fault(and that I've been a great customer to them being prompt with all my payments) and it was the other driver's fault all because I had a bad history of driving? That's complete bullshit! Now I definitely understand those who aren't on car insurance at all that probably had to put up with this crap…..that and or they just can't afford insurance altogether which I also still feel for them coz we're not all rich bastards…

        • photonbuddy on 29/07/2018 - 22:52
          +3

          @Zachary:
          Only if you didn't tell them, when they asked!

        • Zachary on 31/07/2018 - 09:59

          @photonbuddy: What if you forgot or replied no, unintentionally, when they ask for it?

        • photonbuddy on 31/07/2018 - 16:59

          @Zachary:
          You don't forget things like crashes.

          Lets be honest, people lie at this question because they know being truthful is going to hurt the hip pocket, and they think they'll get away with it.

        • Zachary on 01/08/2018 - 19:38

          @photonbuddy: …so what about for those who have some form of memory loss?

        • photonbuddy on 01/08/2018 - 20:28

          @Zachary:
          If you have memory loss, then you should not be entering into any contract which requires the recall of memory.

          Insurance: "So what happened in your accident?"
          Customer: "Ahhhhh … I have memory loss issues, so I don't know!"
          Insurance: "We need the details of the incident, or we will have to deny your claim …"
          Customer: "I'll run off to OzBargain and bad mouth you for my issues!!!!!!!"

    • imurgod on 29/07/2018 - 22:32
      +8

      Reputable insurers don't, they pay claims BUT you have a legal duty to disclose your driving history. Insurance is a contract. If you read your PDS, you'll find that it says they can reduce or deny a claim if you don't fully disclose the info requested.

      FWIW, progressive are cheap and nasty.

      You don't need to lawyer up, go through their IDR process and then go to FOS.

      If what you're saying is true, you'll be fine and they'll pay.

      • canyoudoitcheaper on 30/07/2018 - 00:03
        +3

        This 100%. If you are going to lie or be misleading in your application, you may as well not buy insurance at all, because it will be worthless if you make a claim.

  • PissLUR on 27/07/2018 - 18:35
    +5

    for starter, your friend hasnt been paying the correct premium as failing to declare the suspension.

  • Azrael169 on 27/07/2018 - 19:09
    +34

    Budget insurers (like Progressive are) have a default position on anyone who has had their license cancelled or suspended… They wont offer you insurance at all.

    Your friend entered into a legal contract under false pretences as he failed his duty of disclosure. He is entitled to a full refund of premiums paid and then his policy will be cancelled. I honestly dont think 'lawyering up' is going to help.

    How do you forget that time your license was cancelled??

    • EightImmortals on 28/07/2018 - 08:32

      We are presuming he was asked that over the phone when he took out the insurance. Any time I have taken out insurance they have asked a bunch of questions like that so yeah it's a bit hard to 'forget' when someone asks you directly.

      Raises an interesting question though. How are people who have had previous license cancellations supposed to get insurance on their vehicles? Are the insurance companies playing Judge Dredd (I am duh lawwww) by punishing people way past what legal courts of law have determined?

      Smells like a rat to me.

      • rompastompa on 28/07/2018 - 10:34
        +3

        How are people who have had previous license cancellations supposed to get insurance

        I believe they pay a higher premium, like under 25yr olds. So, instead of paying $800 for full comp, you pay $2500.

        This user said it better..

        • Zachary on 28/07/2018 - 11:06

          $2500, get (profanity)! I may as well pay the other guy myself without going to insurance company to pay it on my behalf!

        • rompastompa on 28/07/2018 - 12:09
          +7

          @Zachary: Maybe.. but then when you have an incident, you'll need to come back to OzBargain and ask for advise on how to get out of paying for damages.

        • Zachary on 28/07/2018 - 13:33

          @rompastompa: Well I guess so…this is a site to save as much money as you can…..regardless how big or small of an amount it is that you need to pay for….whether it be for a product, service or to someone else as a gift/compensation….

        • imurgod on 29/07/2018 - 22:34

          @Zachary: do you listen to yourself? If you're a bad risk, insurers don't want your business. If you get a lot of fines, you're high risk and therefore they'll charge appropriate premiums. What's so hard to understand about that?

          Also, $2,500 will barely pay for a scratch on a used Toyota.

        • Zachary on 31/07/2018 - 00:43
          -3

          @imurgod: If they don't want my business, then why are they willing to take my money, hmmm? That's what OP is going through right now….

          Well charging a premium just because you've had a history of bad driving records is kinda discriminatory, no? I thought this was a free country with no hate…..or any of this crap…..plus I thought we were all over this….

          I know $2500 would at least be able to repaint a car………if you do it yourself……

          They can just go to the wreckers and pay for a 2nd hand whatever it is that got scratched on their toyota that looks in pristine condition…..

        • imurgod on 31/07/2018 - 07:04
          +2

          @Zachary: wrong. You drive like a moron so you're a higher risk of having a claim so you're a bad risk. They don't want that risk. You lie about it and misrepresent how bad you are so they wouldn't have taken your money if they knew.

          Its not discrimination, it's a decision based on how much of a risk you are. Insurance is a business. If you are likely to cost me $10,000 a year, how would I make money ftom your $1,000 premium per year?

          $2,500 might let you paint your car, but say you hit me, you think I'd let you paint my AMG? Not a chance, it goes to a prestige repairer. It won't cost you $2,500 and I don't want wreckers parts on my car, my car is new, I'm entitled to new parts and a premium repair.

        • Zachary on 01/08/2018 - 19:33

          @imurgod: "Hey look, this guy's been to prison and wants a job at my business, I shouldn't hire him because he's risky."

          Is that how it goes?

          No insurance shouldn't be a business to make a profit, they should be there to cover the asses of people who BUY insurance regardless how much profit they bring them. That should be their priority…

          Well you'd let me paint your AMG if you want those paint scratches fixed….what if I'm an actual painter and have experience painting cars, hmmm? Yeah…..I could even do the job as professionally as possible! hahahaha

        • Ughhh on 01/08/2018 - 20:28
          +1

          @Zachary:

          /facepalm

          You clearly don't know the difference between a charity and a business.

          Well you'd let me paint your AMG if you want those paint scratches fixed….what if I'm an actual painter and have experience painting cars, hmmm? Yeah…..I could even do the job as professionally as possible! hahahaha

          What if I have super powers who can fix scratches and dents with my laser eyes blah blah blah

        • imurgod on 02/08/2018 - 06:04

          @Zachary: correct. I wouldn't hire an ex con because it's a risk to my business, of course I wouldn't let you touch my AMG because I have a proper repairer who specialises and I don't trust a random just like you wouldn't trust me to undertake surgery on your child, and insurance companies are a business, not a charity.

          Sorry, you're living in a fantasy world.

        • HighAndDry on 02/08/2018 - 10:19

          @Zachary:

          "Hey look, this guy's been to prison and wants a job at my business, I shouldn't hire him because he's risky."

          Yes, that's literally how it is for any job that handles cash or other high-value items.

          It's no different from reading reviews online of a shop and deciding whether you want to buy from them or not. They're not entitled to anyone's business, the ex-con isn't entitled to a job, and you're not entitled to insurance.

        • Zachary on 03/08/2018 - 07:55

          @Ughhh:

          What if I have super powers who can fix scratches and dents with my laser eyes blah blah blah

          Man I would love that kind of super power! hahahaha - fix anything just by looking at the fault! I wouldn't mind the power of teleportation too, saves me having to drive through peak hour traffic with other cars that are also in the jam…..with slooooooow moving traffic…..where I can just will myself to the target destination and bam I'm there without an issue!

          @imurgod:

          because I have a proper repairer who specialises and I don't trust a random just like you wouldn't trust me to undertake surgery on your child,

          AS long as you got a license to do surgery or qualified/certified enough I trust you to do surgery on my child if I had one….or if time's are tough and there isn't really time to find one(or they're all dead assuming a post-apocalyptic scenario) that does and you know more about the human body than I do, then yeah I would still take you on….

          correct. I wouldn't hire an ex con because it's a risk to my business

          @HighAndDry:

          Yes, that's literally how it is for any job that handles cash or other high-value items.

          …and Australia wonders why there's an increase of unemployed people or and dole bludgers on centrelink…..because I'm sure if they've taken the initiative to even apply for one, it's more likely that they actually want the job than to do dodgy stuff to the company with the job…

        • imurgod on 03/08/2018 - 08:48

          @Zachary: Just a couple of points. I can't imagine anyone would trust child surgery or repairs to a random individual, given the choice, that's simply ridiculous.

          In all my years of handling claims, I've never seen someone trust their repairs to the other party. As you'd imagine, they would be looking for the cheapest job.
          My car cost me six figures. Why would I allow some random I don't know slap some bog on it instead of take it to a qualified repairer who specialises and will provide warranty for the job? FYI insurers provide lifetime warranty on repairs, random guy can't.

          Re ex-cons and work; There's plenty of work around like labouring, trades, etc. Why should I risk my business because some fool made several bad life choices?

          By your logic, criminals should all be honest citizens, keen to go on the straight and narrow when they come out of prison.
          Everyone knows this is not the case or there'd be no career criminals. You reap what you sow.

          It is certainly more likely that they'll do the wrong thing and in any case, why would I give them precedence over someone with the qualifications and experience I want for that role? I'm not a charity. I wouldn't even allow an ex-con a cleaning job because my office contains valuable stuff.

          Australia makes it far too easy to be unemployed, that's why there's so much unemployment. Don't worry, my massive tax bill helps cover dole bludgers who can't be bothered to get a job. Cut the dole off after 6 months for able-bodied people and remove the excuse of drug or alcohol dependency and watch people scramble for jobs.

        • Zachary on 05/08/2018 - 11:26

          @imurgod: I meant you personally, say if you are actually a qualified surgeon to do the job…..not letting you pick the surgeon of choice……

          Re ex-cons and work; There's plenty of work around like labouring, trades, etc. Why should I risk my business because some fool made several bad life choices?

          I've heard from an actual person who came out of prison, they still deny them even simple labouring jobs if they were asked if they ever been to prison or had any criminal charges that led to prison…. Is this not analogy to a black man trying for the same labouing job but denied because he looked like the kind of person who would wreck things because he's black? No? I wouldn't hire an asian woman as my delivery driver because we all know asians can't drive for shit! Oh look, a 100 year old man wants to be a pre-school teacher - oh no, we shouldn't hire him because he could be a pedo. Ahh this well qualified 60 year old man wants a rigging job, nah we'll give it to a younger 20 year old one who has the equivalent qualifications as this 60 year old one.

          This is pure discrimination at its finest…here's an oxford dictionary defefinition if you don't know:

          the practice of treating somebody or a particular group in society less fairly than others

          Isn't that's what you're treating the guy who came fresh out of prison with?

          By your logic, criminals should all be honest citizens, keen to go on the straight and narrow when they come out of prison.
          Everyone knows this is not the case or there'd be no career criminals. You reap what you sow.

          Well shouldn't this be the case? Everyone should be given a second chance or at least more than one….this is why we can't have nice things…

          It is certainly more likely that they'll do the wrong thing and in any case, why would I give them precedence over someone with the qualifications and experience I want for that role? I'm not a charity. I wouldn't even allow an ex-con a cleaning job because my office contains valuable stuff.

          Oh well obviously if someone has more experience or and qualifications over the prison dude, then by all means take him instead but I'm comparing the same level of experience and qualifications of the the dude who came out of prison, so say a teenager, fresh out of high school compared to a guy who came out of prison after coming out of high school, so I guess the prison dude would be slightly more experienced in the area of being in a prison….

          If they repeat their offense well then that's their fault and obviously be going to the corner again….and then coming out and this process repeats itself until the guy either finally learns and stop and do something else OR until he dies from it…

          Australia makes it far too easy to be unemployed, that's why there's so much unemployment. Don't worry, my massive tax bill helps cover dole bludgers who can't be bothered to get a job. Cut the dole off after 6 months for able-bodied people and remove the excuse of drug or alcohol dependency and watch people scramble for jobs.

          I'm pretty sure centrelink or their job active agency cross references their job search efforts so they know if you're actually just bludging or genuinely looking for the job by contating the company/person you applied the job for……so if they don't look right, they'd be cut off immediately….actually I read somewhere in the news that centrelink will now give job active providers the power to cut anyone off payment for whatever reasons they deem fit, for example for not turning up to an appointment without a valid or any reason at all….apparently if you're in hospital with an illness, that still doesn't cut it as a valid excuse for not showing up….

          remove the excuse of drug or alcohol dependency

          …sure let the mental run wild with that…have fun on the streets.

          watch people scramble for jobs.

          I've already seen this happen….hah…but what happens if there are not enough paying jobs? Or and you would get rejected everytime you apply for whatever reasons that they don't tell you because their dicks even if you ask for a reason why?

          BAhhh…I'm probably being a hypocrite myself for typing all this out as I too discriminate to a certain degree, so I should just stop….

        • imurgod on 06/08/2018 - 09:29

          @Zachary: I still don't get anything you're saying with regards to the surgery. I am not a sugeon nor am I a parnelbeater. What's your point?

          Are you seriously unable to distinguish between racial discrimination and the decision not to hire a criminal? They are not even close. One is a risk, the other is not. It's concerning that you referenced your research yet still don't know the difference.

          I wouldn't base my decision to hire someone on race, religion or creed because none would have any bearing on the job… and if you think Asians are bad drivers, you might want to check out some asian racing leagues. You'll find you're very wrong.

          A 100 year old man a pedo? WTF? How did you draw that line?!

          A 60 year old man vs a 20 man for a job that requires physical strength? It's the 20 year old. A 60 year old simply wouldn't be a wise choice considering the risk of injury.

          By your logic, criminals should all be honest citizens, keen to go on the straight and narrow when they come out of prison.
          Everyone knows this is not the case or there'd be no career criminals. You reap what you sow.
          Well shouldn't this be the case? Everyone should be given a second chance or at least more than one….this is why we can't have nice things…>

          You're trying to tell me that every one who comes out of prison is rehabilitated! I don't need to help you figure this one out. Facts simply don't agree with you. And no, not everyone should be given a second chance. Hitler, Paedophiles, Serial killers… Want to give them a second chance?

          Besides, I worked hard to get where I am, why should a person who decided to do the wrong thing and piss their life away be afforded the same opportunities as me? I contribute to society, they attacked it.

          Look, life is unfair. It's that simple. Nobody game me anything. I grew up with struggling parents who taught me strong work ethic and I worked hard. You'd be amazed how many people I know look at my life and tell me how lucky I've been. People never seem to see the hard work behind it all. I get paid a lot to work very little now, but to get here, I worked super-long hours. It was never 9-5.

          I'm pretty sure centrelink or their job active agency cross references their job search efforts so they know if you're actually just bludging or genuinely looking for the job by contating the company/person you applied the job for……so if they don't look right, they'd be cut off immediately….actually I read somewhere in the news that centrelink will now give job active providers the power to cut anyone off payment for whatever reasons they deem fit, for example for not turning up to an appointment without a valid or any reason at all….apparently if you're in hospital with an illness, that still doesn't cut it as a valid excuse for not showing up….>

          No they don't. It's not feasible. That's been established. If they did, there'd be a lot of people caught, but a lot more money spent catching them, so it's not worth it.

          To be fair, I appreciate that you're not being a tool about this, so I don't want to be a w*nker about it either.

          Suffice it to say that often people have differing views on these things and you're entitled to at least your opinion and I respect that.

          Some of the things you bring up are actually good idea but I am a capitalist and I can't stand social security and left ideas, you seem to want a fair shot for everyone and fix all the wrongs of the world and that's admirable.

          I have friends that vote green that I have these discussions with often and it's not difficult to poke holes in their ideas so it's too comfortable to do it here.

          Have a good day, sir.

        • Zachary on 06/08/2018 - 18:28

          @imurgod:

          I still don't get anything you're saying with regards to the surgery. I am not a sugeon nor am I a parnelbeater. What's your point?

          You asked why I would trust someone else to do a surgery on my ghostly child….

          Are you seriously unable to distinguish between racial discrimination and the decision not to hire a criminal?

          No no, I meant it as a whole in general, not specifically racial….so not hiring someone because … is discrimination, no? Because you're not treating them equally as everyone else. Doesn't matter if it's racial, appearance, social status or whatever else you can nitpick on them for, it's still discrimination….

          and if you think Asians are bad drivers, you might want to check out some asian racing leagues. You'll find you're very wrong.

          I was stereotyping…..

          A 100 year old man a pedo? WTF? How did you draw that line?!

          Again I was being stereotypical….is it not usually the really old dudes into kids….? If it's happening to young guys too than I must be living under a rock… I've seen some people date 15 and 16 year olds and they're like 20 something, what's wrong with that? It's their life choice….not my business but people nitpick on this and will single you out cause you date younger people than you are….

          A 60 year old man vs a 20 man for a job that requires physical strength? It's the 20 year old. A 60 year old simply wouldn't be a wise choice considering the risk of injury.

          But the 60 year old would have more experience assuming he been a rigger he's entire life. So he would be a safer bet…..and will handle things with more care than a 20 year old would, thanks to their great wisdom…..

          You're trying to tell me that every one who comes out of prison is rehabilitated!

          I would hope they are….

          Hitler, Paedophiles, Serial killers… Want to give them a second chance?

          …sure why not, what could go wrong….? :P Maybe they have seen their errors and will change them, hopefully…? Or maybe, at least for the pedos, think they're still have a mind of kid and think going after high schoolers and or primary schoolers are still cool as long as they consent without any coercion…..like they say, old habits die hard….

          No they don't. It's not feasible. That's been established. If they did, there'd be a lot of people caught, but a lot more money spent catching them, so it's not worth it.

          Was there not a report somewhere that about 10% or so of centrelink people are dole bludgers? I wonder how they got to that answer….?

          I have friends that vote green that I have these discussions with often and it's not difficult to poke holes in their ideas so it's too comfortable to do it here.

          I voted for greens too but liberals still won…..

          I'm not usually this righteous by the way….hahahaha….guess I've been playing and watching too many things to warp my trail of thought to the light side….

          And yes have a great afternoon! ☺

      • Azrael169 on 28/07/2018 - 12:29
        +2

        General insurers (NRMA, AAMI etc) will still insure you with a license suspension. They may place restrictions on your policy and add on special excesses but you no longer fit the customer profile for a low risk insurer, you need a general insurer or use a insurance broker to find a company that will take on your risk.

  • garetz on 27/07/2018 - 19:09
    +10

    Getting a lawyer is irrelevant, if your friend didnt disclose a previous suspension, then he is shit out of luck, "forgetting" is not a legal defense.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/07/2018 - 14:14
      -4

      The legal situation would be whether the insurance clause is reasonable to apply in this case.
      It may seem black and white but is not.

      E.g. When you purchase a washing machine it may have a clause that the warranty expires after 1 year and that by purchasing the machine you agree to that clause, however if you take the manufacturer to court you will most certainly win a warranty based claim against that manufacturer in the second or even third (and fourth) year as a 1 year warrant for such an item is deemed to be unreasonable despite the fact that buyer and seller agreed to the 1 year term.

      The lawyers argument may be that there is no evidence that a user with a single unpaid fine is a materially different risk case than a person without an unpaid fine. Unless the insurer can demonstrate that there is such an increased risk (and they may need specific data to prove this, not just data on suspension/risk) then the clause may be found to be unreasonable or unconscionable to apply.

      Clauses that are deemed to be unreasonable or unconscionable are not legally enforceable.
      In making a judgement the judge may also take into account the length of the contract terms & conditions (the longer and more legally worded the less a reasonable consumer is expected to be fully 'around' the terms) & the relative contracting power of the insurer.

      • HighAndDry on 30/07/2018 - 15:01
        +1

        Basically none of this is applicable. Insurance is governed by its own set of laws and normal laws for contracts don't apply (only the very general principles are shared).

        • nith265 on 31/07/2018 - 13:02
          -1

          Insurance is governed by its own set of laws and normal laws for contracts don't apply

          Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well but this is completely wrong - an insurance policy/contract is just like any other.
          (not that I persionally think think any @lghulm points apply to OP)

          You are right in the sense in that OP's first stop would not be the courts but Financial Ombudsman Service where they take into account "industry codes of practice" and "good industry practice" in making a determination - something the court's don't have to.

          Plus if FOS's determination is in his favour then it is binding and the insurance company cant even appeal to the courts.

        • HighAndDry on 31/07/2018 - 13:17

          @nith265: Usual contracts are governed basically by common law. There is no "Contracts Act".

          Insurance is governed by (amongst others), the Insurance Act 1902. Statutes override common law. This isn't even LAWS1000, this is like legal studies in high school.

          So, no I didn't misspeak. Literally different laws.

        • nith265 on 31/07/2018 - 16:55

          @HighAndDry: OK you are correct and I was w w w wrong. I didn’t appreciate how specifically insurance contracts were exempted from unfair conditions.

          However the Act you refer to also requires insurers to act in “utmost good faith” when offering an insurance policy which is in effect a very similar concept.

          I love reading the old determinations from FOS , check out this one where the insurer tries to hide behind the exact wording of the policy but was determined to have acted not in “utmost good faith”
          https://forms.fos.org.au/DapWeb/CaseFiles/FOSSIC/227812.pdf

          ”Clauses that are deemed to be unreasonable or unconscionable are not legally enforceable”

          This was the main point I was defending - so while the term “utmost good faith” isn’t the same, it’s the same vibe (its Mabo, it’s the constitution) that @lghulm was vaguely trying to express (maybe.…)

  • vinni9284 on 27/07/2018 - 19:15
    +10

    I am no fan of insurance companies however many overlook the Duty of Disclosure, research their history and declare. Even declare if they lose their licence whilst they are currently insured.

    Many "assume" that they are covered however when a claim is made, they do a history check and deny the claim. Especially when the payout is significant.

    It is clear on their Duty of Disclosure to declare questions that they ask and non-disclosure or false declarations will render "treated like insurance never existed"

    You can try the Insurance Ombudsman but I think your friend won't have a leg to stand on.

    Good luck

  • holdenmg on 27/07/2018 - 20:18
    +4

    If in NSW and a Member of NRMA,
    NRMA Member Legal Service
    www.mynrma.com.au
    ph: 1800 427 426 or 8741 6280

  • dylo on 27/07/2018 - 22:53
    +16

    Do you have an MS Paint picture of accident? adds clarity for us

  • ol mate on 27/07/2018 - 23:04
    +7

    The only out I see (ianal) is if Progressive would have still insured him with the suspension (aka. Do a quote now and see if they still will insure with a suspension).

    • DarkOz on 28/07/2018 - 08:56
      +3

      Yup. Get another friend and call Progressive for a quote with the same situation:
      1. Offers a normal quote.
      2. Offers a much higher quote.
      3. Refuses to quote.

      If the answer is 1. then OP's friend has a case.

      • ol mate on 28/07/2018 - 14:12
        +8

        If it's 2, theres an argument that theres a case too, and the friend would need to "top up" their premium (or progressive wouldn't pay the difference between what they would have charged and what they did charge)

        Well, that is my interpretation of the section of the act posted above (insurance act s54 paragraph 1)

        • akyeeeahdude on 28/07/2018 - 23:56

          Yes, you would be correct with your interpretation.

        • josho9 on 29/07/2018 - 11:03

          But that section only related to "an act that occurred after the contract was entered into".

    • josho9 on 29/07/2018 - 11:00

      That's not an out. An insurance contract is a contract of the utmost good faith and is voided for a breach of the duty of disclosure. It's not a question of whether the insurer would have offered a policy even if they had known; they are entitled to know.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/07/2018 - 14:27
        -2

        They are only entitled to know details that are materially relevant to the risk profile.

        It can be argued that a suspension for an unpaid fine does not materially alter the risk profile of the purchaser.

        E.g. If I purchased insurance while in the suburb of Belmont (medium risk theft profile) and moved to the suburb of Midland (medium risk profile) but did not disclose this to my insurer and my car was stolen and the insurer refused to pay, a court is likely to find that they must pay even though I failed my duty of disclosure to notify of a change of address.

        On the other hand if I moved to a higher risk profile location (Northbridge), which has data to prove vehicles kept there are at higher risk the insurer has greater (still not definitive) grounds to refuse the claim.

        In a court of law the fact a clause is in place and has been breached is not (on its own) sufficient to categorically side with the insurer. People get confused because between two COMMERCIAL ENTITIES contracting the clause on its own is sufficient. Between a consumer and a business it is not.
        The reason this is so is because commercial entities are considered to have far greater contracting power than the consumers that purchase off them so there is an understanding that consumers when signing are not likely to fully understand the implications of there signature.

        As a greater example of this, consider the effects on a signed contract if the signer is knowingly drunk or intellectually incompetent at the time (contract void).

        When drafting the terms the insurer definitely has obtained legal advice in the drafting, in reading the terms it is not expected the signer has had legal advice in terms of advising on the issues that may present when signing. This is a relative contracting power difference that is taken into account. Consumers are covered by a common sense clause of "what it is reasonable for them to expect or understand". The insurer here would also be playing on this with it "being reasonable to expect the signer to understand a failure to disclosure could result in claim denial".

        There is a case to be argued either way. This is why we have judges & magistrates.

        • HighAndDry on 31/07/2018 - 13:21
          -1

          Honest question - are you a first year Commerce/LLB student? Your level of knowledge, and disproportionate level of confidence in that knowledge, fit that bill perfectly.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join