A regular visitor to the Arrive Alive website sent these photos of a sign at the East Rand Mall that fell unto a vehicle. This just proves that however cautious you might be – accidents do happen!!
This is why you should never risk driving around without car insurance. Dangers and risks are not only presented by human factors and irresponsible driving -but also by environmental factors such as strong winds!
Men are regarded to be more likely claimants from their car insurers. There has been quite a bit of discussion on this topic – and especially about the assumption by some female drivers that they are not only perceived as safer drivers…but that they might actually claim to be better drivers!
Accident crash statistics provide proof that women do claim less from car insurers – and these claims also differ from the vehicle damage suffered by their male counterparts. There are a variety of reasons why women are regarded as safer drivers – and this has created a unique segment in the car insurance industry – car insurers providing products for women only!
Cheaper car insurance premiums for women are the result of the driving behaviour of both men and women – and are not motivated by their attitude towards love and relationships. It is however interesting to note what has happened to the vehicles of some cheating husbands and boyfriends…!!
Car Insurance claims from this vehicle damage might only be the tip of the iceberg of problems that might be awaiting them!!
Also view:
The 27th of July 2010 was the one year anniversary of the Car Insurance Blog at carinsurance.arrivealive.co.za. Even though the Arrive Alive road safety website has been online for 7 years, and we have included a section on car insurance and road safety, it is only a year since much more attention has been given to providing blog posts about car insurance.
The development of the Arrive Alive website has been made possible with the assistance of a variety of corporate sponsors, including the car insurance industry, and this has enabled us to share important two-way communication with visitors.
It became evident that there is great uncertainty pertaining to aspects of car insurance, on what to do not only to protect against vehicle accidents claims, but also how to find the correct insurance and what to do when an insurance claim is rejected.
On a personal level it was the opportune time to use my experience having read law for 5 years, lecturing in law for 5 years and working in the financial services field for 8 years – to provide advice that could benefit many of our vehicle owners.
The information on the Arrive Alive website can be found on these pages:
These suggestions and advice were supported during the past year with regular blog posts on car insurance. It is perhaps time to reflect on some of the interesting insights we were able to gather about the car insurance blog through the tools provided by Google Analytics.
Car Insurance Blog and Google Analytics search results
27 July 2009 – 27 July 2010
- 28,797 Visits
- 56,115 Page views
- 231 Referring sources
- 13,716 Keywords used in search engines
- Visits came from 140 countries
We are pleased to find that many visitors have been able to find the important advice they required and were searching for. We will continue to be guided by visitors and their quest for information.
Many other car insurance sites have been able to benefit from the information, often referring to the car insurance blog as source – whilst other have unfortunately plagiarised many of these posts.
This will not deter us from the ultimate objective – to provide independent and credible information, advice and suggestions about car insurance to vehicle owners.
If we are able to assist more vehicle owners to find affordable car insurance and protect themselves from vehicle accident claims through safer driving behaviour – all these efforts would be worth every minute spent on writing these blog posts!!
What can the vehicle owner do to reduce the risk of car insurance claims? The Arrive Alive Website offers much advice pertaining to safe driving and accident avoidance. Many claims are however not the result of vehicle damage from road accidents but claims from vehicle loss caused by criminal activity such as hijacking and vehicle theft.
In a series of blogs we will investigate vehicle theft and offer advice on how the vehicle owner can protect his ownership. These aspects include safeguarding against car key theft, cautious parking, car security mechanisms etc.
Protecting your car from theft does not have to be expensive. Security systems should be used in addition to responsible ownership and a bit of common sense. By being cautious, alert and aware of your surroundings you can lay the foundation for safe ownership and a reduced risk of car insurance claims.
Professional thieves prefer their task to be quick and easy – by taking some precautions, you will be able to make this more difficult and perhaps stop these attempts in their tracks!
We would like to provide the following recommendations to vehicle owners:
Where to park your car
Never underestimate the value of feedback from residents and business owners in the vicinity where you park. Ask whether you are parking at a safe spot and whether they would advise a different place to park.
Having parked your car:
Also view:
The past weekend I have spent quite a bit of time researching run flat tyre technology and the impact that this might have on the safety of road users. Tyre manufacturers are spending much time and funding on efforts to develop tyres that are safer and that provides “run flat capabilities”.
All these efforts are however in vain if the driver does not monitor the condition of his tyres. We can have the best tyres from the most reputable tyre manufacturers, but if those tyres have travelled too far and are worn out, they simply would not be able to provide the necessary grip on the roads!
In the event of a car insurance claim, the insurer may reject the claim if the accident was the result of operating a non-roadworthy vehicle. We have previously written about this in a blog titled “Car insurance claim can be rejected if vehicle tyres are not roadworthy!”. It is however important to recognize that such dismissal/ rejection of a car insurance claim would not be accepted merely by having a look at the appearance of the tyres –but by asking whether there is a causal connection between the smoothness of the tyres and the accident.
We would like to refer to an actual example/ decision by the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance.
Facts:
The Insured entered a traffic light controlled four-way intersection at a speed of 50 to 60 Km/h. The green light was in his favour and just before he entered the intersection, an Isuzu white Bakkie entering the intersection from the opposite direction executed a turn to the lsuzu’s right, i.e. across the direction of travel of the Insured. The Insured applied brakes slightly and noticed that the light was still green for him. To his surprise a Mazda 323 followed the manoeuvre of the Isuzu Bakkie and a collision occurred. The Insured’s Toyota collided with the Mazda’s left rear door. The Insurer rejected liability on the ground that the two front tyres were smooth and that liability is excluded as a result of “damage to the vehicle caused by or attributable to an unroadworthy condition of the vehicle”.
Ombudsman’s response
The Ombudsman pointed out that having regard to the circumstances of the collision, the smooth tyres had no causal connection to the collision and the subsequent damage to the complainant’s vehicle. The Insurer was persuaded to meet the claim.
From the above we can see that the mere presence of smooth tyres will not repudiate the accident claim – it must be one of the factors that caused the accident. The condition and smoothness of your tyres are important for car insurance – but even more so for your safety on road!
Also view:
Back Yard Repairs
Have you also been told about some brilliant backyard mechanic who can repair your vehicle at a fraction of the costs? A frequent cause of unhappiness for the insured car owner is unsatisfactory repairs to the vehicle after an accident. This complaint is usually that repair work done is inefficient or defective or that the vehicle has not been restored to its pre-accident condition, or a combination of both.
The Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance has provided the following guidelines to insured car owners with reference to repairs on their vehicles!
We would like to advise that policy owners communicate clearly and without delay with the insurer. It is best to be fully aware of all the facts and to make an informed decision – only by doing so will you be able to avoid nasty and costly surprises!
Tyres not roadworthy
Can your vehicle insurance claim be rejected if your vehicle is not in a roadworthy condition? If we carefully consider this question we would have to agree that roadworthiness is indeed a fair expectation from the side of the insurer.
The insurer insures a roadworthy vehicle and provides cover for such a vehicle and the risks to the reasonable operation of such a vehicle. If the damage is caused by an unlicensed driver or a drunk driver – the insurer may reject the claim. It only seems reasonable that the insurer could expect the car to be driven in a roadworthy condition and with tyres that provide safe protection on the road!
The answer to this question is however not as simple. There have been differing decisions by the Ombudsman on this matter. It is important to consider the facts in each scenario and establish whether the condition of the tyres was in fact a direct cause of the accident and the damage to the car.
We would like to consider one example where the tread on tyres were considered an important contributing factor to the accident:
Example: Rear tyres did not have a proper tread situation.
Facts: The insured was travelling from Cavendish Square in Claremont, Cape Town, to his home in Fish Hoek, along the M3 freeway.
Just before the Tokai turnoff, a drunken pedestrian was illegally on the freeway and stumbled and ran into the road just missing a 4 x 4 Toyota. The insured swerved, applied the brakes heavily to try and avoid the pedestrian, but he ultimately collided with the pedestrian who survived the collision. The insurer rejected liability because both rear tyres had tread below the legal limit, and it was a condition of the policy that a vehicle had to be in roadworthy condition. The insured did not accept the aforesaid allegation, and the insurer then requested the AA to supply it with a report, which confirmed that both rear tyres were found to be unroadworthy.
Ombudsman’s response:
The policy issued to the insured contained a specific condition that the vehicle be kept in a road worthy condition at all times in terms of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The tyre tread depth did not meet the requirements. The insurer’s decision was not based entirely on the policy condition, but also on the fact that the collision may have been avoided and the damages lessened had the vehicle tyres been in a good condition. Based on the facts, the Ombudsman concluded that the insurer was entitled to maintain the rejection.
[Source: Ombudsman Annual Report 2003]
We would like to urge all vehicle owners and policyholders to attend to the roadworthiness of their vehicles and to view the Arrive Alive website for more info on “Tyres and Road Safety”
Severe Overloading
We often hear readers complain about their insurers and the non-payment of a claim. Before we criticise and take the matter to the Ombudsman we need to reflect on car insurance and the contents of the insurance policy. Car insurance is a contract between a client and his insurance company. The insurer agrees to provide cover on receipt of a monthly insurance premium for “normal” and “expected” risks to the insurable interest of the client.
The policy of insurance would also stipulate specific exclusions under which the insurer would not be obliged to make payment. These could include a certain event, person, peril, condition or situation that is not covered. This exclusion, or more than one exclusion, could be removed at the payment of an additional premium should the insurance company be in agreement to accept the additional risk. Typical exclusions from car insurance would be: overloading your car; using your car as a taxi service (earning income from it,) damage to your car from driving on gravel roads etc…
By overloading your vehicle you are creating an additional risk. The Arrive Alive road safety website described these risks:
Always remember that you would not only have to cope with poor handling and braking performance, you could also invalidate your insurance, and even incur a fine, if the car is overloaded.
The quick and easy answer would be – when does your policy document require you to provide such notification? It is important to remember that your insurance policy is the written agreement between you and your insurer. You pay a monthly insurance premium and the insurer agrees to provide compensation when a specific event occurs. The insurer will compensate for that damage after the accidental damage has occurred, and once you have complied with the complete and timely disclosures required in the policy!!
It is important to keep the policy documentation in mind in the event of an accident. Failure to follow the terms of the policy will amount to breach of contract and the insurer cannot then be held accountable for failure to provide compensation to the insured!
It is best to illustrate this with an actual example of a claim that was referred to the Ombud for Short Term Insurance:
Facts:
The Insured’s motorbike was damaged in a collision on Thursday, 20th June 2002. The following day, i.e. on Friday, 21st June, he gave telephonic details of the collision to his Broker which telefaxed to him on Monday 24th June, claim forms. The motorbike was taken on a trailer to Linex Yamaha during that week, and he was only able to collect the quotation from Linex Yamaha the following Tuesday, i.e. 2nd July 2002. On Friday, 12th July 2002, his 79 year old father fell and was placed in Universitas Hospital, Centurion. The Insured being a single parent and between his responsibilities with his father, son and work, only managed to get to Linden Police Station on Tuesday, 23rd July 2002, to get them to stamp and sign off the motor accident claim form. On Thursday, 25th July 2002, he faxed the claim form together with the quotation to the Insurance Broker. The Insurer rejected liability because the claim was not reported in writing within thirty days of the event. The Insured was five days late within giving written advices to the Insurer of the claim.
Decision:
In view of the strict conditions of the Policy, requiring written notification of the claim within thirty days of the event, the Ombudsman could not make a ruling against the Insurer.
Source: Ombudsman Newsletter : 02/03
Advice:
We would like to advise all policyholders to keep their policy documents in a safe place – follow the steps taken as stipulated in this document and do not be the cause of unnecessary delays! Contact your insurer and always remember – there is nothing quite like enquiring!!
What is the purpose of insurance? The Ombudsman of short-term insurance has described this best by stating – “The purpose of insurance is indemnification, not enrichment”. This means in lay-man terms that insurance is meant to place the insured in the position that he would have been was it not for the damage to his insured interest…
What is the effect of this on vehicle repairs and especially the parts used when repairing the vehicle? Do these parts have to be brand new parts?
South Africa’s short-term insurance ombudsman has confirmed that used and non-genuine parts can be used to repair insured cars provided they don’t compromise safety. Ombudsman Brian Martin said his office frequently received complaints about repairers using so-called ‘pirate’ and used parts.
‘There is a perception on the part of the public,’ he said, ‘that an insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new factory-supplied parts. ‘Depending on the circumstance and the age and condition of a car, there is no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided safety or reliability are not compromised.’
The use of second-hand parts, where appropriate, was also to be encouraged to cut costs. Martin stressed that each case had to be assessed on merit and asked vehicle owners to be ‘reasonable and practical’. The underlying purpose of insurance was indemnification, not enrichment. Martin added, however: ‘Original factory-supplied components must be fitted when a critical component is damaged or where a warranty or maintenance plan may be adversely affected by fitting other components.’
A distinction was drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conformed to recognised safety or quality standards and those classified as fake or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China.