Curious if there's anything in writing saying it does not affect insurance if you're over on your RUC's.
absolute_detail,
May 17, 8:15am
Nope, neither does rego and wof
curlcrown,
May 17, 8:17am
No, it has no effect on insurance.
tygertung,
May 17, 8:28am
Only if it was the cause of the accident.
tjholding,
May 17, 10:16am
As others have said; It won't affect claim acceptance insofar as it is not likely causative to a claim.
In the event of a write off you will have to pay the outstanding RUC (or have it deducted from the settlement).
loose.unit8,
May 17, 10:37am
x1
I'd be interested to know how not paying a tax could contribute to an accident lol
gazzat22,
May 17, 10:49am
But if you get caught it will have a significant effect on your bank account.!
tygertung,
May 17, 12:24pm
Exactly, I had an insurance policy which said that even a WOF wasn't required, it would only be declined if the vehicle was unroadworthy and that caused the accident.
loose.unit8,
May 17, 1:18pm
The insurance policy doesn't even have to state that. What you've just said is essentially what the applicable part of insurance law says.
franc123,
May 17, 4:04pm
#8 and #9 correct they have to prove that a pre existing issue with your car that would render it unworthy was the direct cause of the event leading to the claim. Other legalities are not relevant.
tygertung,
May 17, 5:37pm
RUC is unlikely to cause a crash therefore not an issue as so far as insurance is concerned.
marte,
May 17, 6:05pm
If it hasn't got current RUC, it shouldn't driven on the road. If its not being driven on the road it wont get involved in a accident. Therefore the accident was the result of illegal activity. Claim denied.
Thats my theory, based on AA Insurance statement that " The accidents your fault, if you were not on the road, our customer would not have run into the back of your vehicle" ( in road rage. )
trouser,
May 17, 6:40pm
luckily we have an act of parliament that's says no to what you propose. Insurance law reform act 1985. Oh and there is no way that AA insurance said that.
loose.unit8,
May 17, 7:35pm
Perhaps you should stop being wrong and read the law
mrfxit,
May 17, 9:20pm
LOL, nice try & I can see your point, BUTT, it no longer works like that. Used to until the govt got tired of being grizzeled at by ppl being denied their claims for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time & totally 100% no fault of the driver or their own car. (nothing they did or the cars condition could have caused the crash)
marte,
May 17, 11:05pm
I have the paperwork, lol.
Nah, no RUC shouldn't/wouldnt affect a insurance claim.
4.11,
May 18, 6:27am
I was 10,000 over in my ford focus diesel wagon when i lost it down a bank, insurance(state) didnt give a crap about the RUCs
houseofdad,
May 18, 8:17am
Cheers team for the great advice. Will hold off buying more RUC's.
tjholding,
May 18, 8:53am
While you are correct its actually the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11 specifically;
Certain exclusions forbidden Where— (a) by the provisions of a contract of insurance the circumstances in which the insurer is bound to indemnify the insured against loss are so defined as to exclude or limit the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured on the happening of certain events or on the existence of certain circumstances; and (b) in the view of the court or arbitrator determining the claim of the insured the liability of the insurer has been so defined because the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances was in the view of the insurer likely to increase the risk of such loss occurring,— the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances
tygertung,
May 18, 9:51am
What if you had a car parked on the side of the road and someone crashed into it?
Surely it is your fault, as if you hadn't parked your car there, the other person wouldn't have crashed into it?
tjholding,
Aug 7, 5:08pm
This is called a 'but for' argument and has been repeatedly shot down by the courts.
In this example, the person who was drivings owes an absolute duty of care to not damage any property or person. Even if the car was parked illegally, the moving vehicle has an absolute duty of care.
A counter example is is you have a passenger on a restricted license. The legal test is not "would the accident have happened anyway but for the presence of the passenger". Its that "did the absence of a supervisor while carrying a passenger cause or contribute to the accident"
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.