Did you watch this episode and see the guy in the white car who had an epileptic blackout and ran up the rear of the yellow '74 falcon/fairmont and then ran into the power pole! The blackout driver has no insurance to cover the damage to the yellow falcon/fairmont and the power pole. The driver of the coon said he couldn't get insurance, as the car is too valuable and he has owned it since new. The program reported the white car driver did not get prosecuted by the police due to the medical issue discovered later, but he may be facing civil court action. Another reason why 3rd party should be compulsory for all unless you can prove you have full cover.
xpfairmont,
Jul 3, 7:39pm
Yeah I just saw the end of it. OMFG!
gunhand,
Jul 3, 7:43pm
I was going to post about that as well but forgot the excact wording lol so didnt. How much does he think his car is worth and what a load on dribble saying it couldnt be insured. And the ahole truck driver as well wishing the cop stabbed.
robbo36,
Jul 3, 7:46pm
Yep, all that ranting and abuse for a $30 fine after getting pinged for 101km/hr in a 40 odd tonne behemoth. Winner right there if ever I saw one! Lol
gunhand,
Jul 3, 7:50pm
And he called him a c%&t as well. Anyone knowing transport will know the company so hope he gets an earfull. Was it comtrans!.Good look for whatever transport it was.Mind you they could all be sittin round the smoko room givin themselves high 5s thinking it was a great laugh as well.surly not though.
lalbagh,
Jul 3, 7:52pm
What was it. thousands for the yellow car, 12 odd grand for the pole, own car written off too. Mind you even if the white car had had insurance, would they have paid out! I recall an item on Fair Go recently where a driver had a med related blackout, wiped out someones fence and garden- their insurer paid for their own vehicle, but refused to pay out on the third party damage to fence etc, on the grounds that the driver, being blacked out, was not actually "driving" the vehicle. Would like to see where that one went, IMO if your vehicle causes damage to something whether you are in control of it or not, you surely are liable for any damage it causes
franc123,
Jul 3, 7:55pm
Sorry but I didn't believe that story, there was foolishness on both sides there. Theres a big difference between not having insurance and not being able to get insurance, I suspect the GT wasn't insurable for the price the owner wanted to pay, thats all, or else there was a bad claims record. There wouldn't be any reason otherwise why a specialist wouldn't insure it.
gunhand,
Jul 3, 7:59pm
Or he was one of those people who think they dont need insurance as they have a "it will never happen to me" attitude. Now hes making excuses lol. Well it did happen a. MInd you if was a better driver he would have avoided it or known that other dude was going to pass out.
robbo36,
Jul 3, 8:00pm
Maybe he "loves" being shunted up the rear!
gunhand,
Jul 3, 8:02pm
Must have, but the bill will be a goody. two people no insurance between then and thousands of dollers damge. Oh well guess they can just pay it off.
elect70,
Jul 4, 1:37pm
That was a postie& it was in thecontract . Nothing stopping theother partes insurance taking action . I had a Wgtn CC truck run down hill & smack my car, council insurers wouldnt pay as" Vehicle wasnt under control of employee", he hadnt pulled handbrake on fully & wasnt in the cab . Luckily my insurance covered it then took council to court & won so didnt lose my no claim bonus .
socram,
Jul 4, 2:40pm
Third party surely means exactly that.If your vehicle hits another item, not owned by you, then isn't that what the 3rd part cover is for!You are insuring the car, not yourself. If you have an agreed value policy, then the premium reflects the value of your vehicle. Each year, we reduce the value of our moderns, but the classics stay the same.
supernova2,
Jul 4, 3:04pm
Talking about the postie van did anyone remember the name of the insurance company!Some odd bod outfit and obviously just trying it on.I hope the poor guy minus the fence etc etc takes the postie to Disputes as clearly (IMHO) the postie has to pay up.Let the postie argue with the insurance coy.Ins cant now turn up at Disputes and say its a matter covered by the policy, so therefore they will argue the case for the insured, as they have already said its not.I'd love to see the policy document.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jul 4, 4:31pm
This thread just goes to show how little people actually know about their true cover and their assumptions about what it is they think they've purchased.
berg,
Jul 4, 5:47pm
Just watched it and was bloody disgusted at the truck drivers behaviour. I hope his boss has been pointed to that bit of film and shite comes down from on high in great lumps. All he has done is ensured that company will get plenty of police attention.
modie61,
Jul 4, 7:22pm
That truck drivers attitude doesnt surprise me 1 bit.
berg,
Jul 4, 7:31pm
Most truck drivers are getting better and more professional to deal with. There's always going to be the odd exception but the industry seems to be weeding them out.
modie61,
Jul 4, 7:33pm
Hope they hurry up and weed the 1 out that rips up and mostly down our street soon.
kazbanz,
Jul 4, 7:35pm
Yep--the insurer was Zuric
berg,
Jul 4, 7:38pm
What colours the truck!
modie61,
Jul 4, 7:51pm
Orange/black. i will sort it.
supernova2,
Jul 4, 9:01pm
Thats it.Noticed thge new van was a HiandDry.Bro in law just bought a van from a HiandDry dealer and they used Daimler Finance.Lots of Germanic names here.Any chance that Zuric is an "in house" HiandDry insurance coy!
supernova2,
Jul 4, 9:04pm
We have a new subdivisiondown the road and over the last year there has been a lot of Rubbish trucks and Removal trucks comming and going.I do wonder if it is a requirement that drivers of such vehicles must be blind and incapable of operating a clutch.I'd shoot myself if I manipulated a wheel barrow the way some of them negotiate a driveway.
It's that old "No 3rd party cover again" Note the ones that don't believe in it haven't appeared!
One of my workmates today scored a cheap van off an uninsured client, who drove onto a one-way bridge, taking the sign posted right-of-way whilst another insured vehicle was already on the bridge.
Small claims outcome ruled that oncoming vehicle was already on the bridge so he should have stopped. Now he must reimburse the insured vehicles Insurance Co 11K, and he's lost his van, other than the few hundy it's worth now. The repair cost was far more than it's value.
For the sake of not insuring an old 5K van - he's now down the gurgler about 16K
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.