in this case the vehicle was taken to Warkworth where Lumley arranged to have their accessor take a look at it. evryting was still there at that stage. then it was transported back to auckland by Lumley to their choosen storage facility where it was apprasied. at this stage items seemed to have cone missing.
It was bad enough getting back from warkworth to auckland let alone carrying a pile of gear with me. I suppose i have to be thankfull that my recovery gear was not in the back or i probibly would have lost that as well.
Once the insurance company take controll of the vehicle they have a duty of care and in thios case lumly failed to provide this, personal items that were not part of the claim should have been either packages and returned to me or i should have been gievn the opportunity to recover these from their storage facicity.
I agree when finding out about the stolen items i should have laid a complaint with the police and i may still do this.
What is interesting is i have an official statement from lumley claiming that the lost items are not their problem.
One thing i willl say is that once John Barly took the bull by the horns Lumley sorted things out. I think that i was unfairly trated by Lumley and their actions reflected poorly on Johns service. However once they decided not to allow me to get insurance thru them John as a broker did not seem too interested in offering alternatives other than pointing me in the direction of some car club that has excessivly high insurance rates.
4WD Insurance
your right, there are only really two opitons for insurance for this type of cover, as you can see it is a high risk hence the cost and lack of other insurers underwritng this type of risk,
i work in this industry and hate to say it, for all the genuine claims of 4wd
there are some that feel theres should be pay but are not covered under
there policy conditions and terms,this is what makes claims take longer
to settle, they are all looked at now on a case by case senrio.
i have been involved with a few of these types of claims, i have seen some declined, but most are paid.
if every claim was genuine and only the damage concerned was assessed
more insurers would look at this type of policy, as it has to make money
to look at the time and investment implied by the insurer.
yes we all hate to pay our high 4wd drive premiums but opition B is for
all insurers to work out the risk to premium ratio is not profitable and close down these schemes that John and national auto club provide.
i work in this industry and hate to say it, for all the genuine claims of 4wd
there are some that feel theres should be pay but are not covered under
there policy conditions and terms,this is what makes claims take longer
to settle, they are all looked at now on a case by case senrio.
i have been involved with a few of these types of claims, i have seen some declined, but most are paid.
if every claim was genuine and only the damage concerned was assessed
more insurers would look at this type of policy, as it has to make money
to look at the time and investment implied by the insurer.
yes we all hate to pay our high 4wd drive premiums but opition B is for
all insurers to work out the risk to premium ratio is not profitable and close down these schemes that John and national auto club provide.
retired 4wd to a ford ranger and UTV
borg wrote:Lumley were useless and in my opinion have some serreious performance matters they should be dealing with.
Hate to say it, but after seeing the photo of where the "incident" happened, you should count yourself lucky they even bothered paying you out at all.
If you want to try to drive something like that where its obviously flooded, and there is no way of telling the depth or even the condition of the road under the water, then why blame the insurance company?
This is the exact reason its so hard to get insurance on 4wds these days, I'm sure if you took this photo to your new insurer to show them why you claimed last, they would probably not insure you once the policy comes up for renewal.
Dave,
Thanks for the imput however the problem is not if my insurance covered it as this was a FLOOD situation. Maybe i should not have tried to drive thru it however there were not many choices in this instance.
There were pleanty of markers showing the direction of the drive way and the depth was not initally the issue. as most of the drive was just above the wheels (and i mean Just).
The qualiity of the photo you refer to was taken on a cell phone and is very pixilated, im suprised that you would even attempt to make the assumption that it was hard to tell the depth.
During the floodint there were apparently several hunderd cars that meet a similar fate in the area.
As mentined the issue is not If or Why i got paid out but the process. they pissed around and this cost me money, they then did not pay out when they were supposed to an this incoveneianced me further. they then allowed personal items in the vehicle to be taken while it was in their care.
as for the risk factor, 3 insurance claims in 25 years? tell me where the risk is.
Thanks for the imput however the problem is not if my insurance covered it as this was a FLOOD situation. Maybe i should not have tried to drive thru it however there were not many choices in this instance.
There were pleanty of markers showing the direction of the drive way and the depth was not initally the issue. as most of the drive was just above the wheels (and i mean Just).
The qualiity of the photo you refer to was taken on a cell phone and is very pixilated, im suprised that you would even attempt to make the assumption that it was hard to tell the depth.
During the floodint there were apparently several hunderd cars that meet a similar fate in the area.
As mentined the issue is not If or Why i got paid out but the process. they pissed around and this cost me money, they then did not pay out when they were supposed to an this incoveneianced me further. they then allowed personal items in the vehicle to be taken while it was in their care.
as for the risk factor, 3 insurance claims in 25 years? tell me where the risk is.
borg wrote:Dave,
The qualiity of the photo you refer to was taken on a cell phone and is very pixilated, im suprised that you would even attempt to make the assumption that it was hard to tell the depth.
During the floodint there were apparently several hunderd cars that meet a similar fate in the area.
So, before driving in did you know how deep it was? I'd say no, so its fair to assume the depth was hard to tell?
Yes, 25yrs driving and 3 claims is good, I'm not saying that its ok to lose personal items, but I'd be happy to get any money at all out of that situation.
Of course this is just my opinion, but there is a difference between a vehicle being caught in a flood, and driving into one deliberately, this is where my comment on being happy they paid out came from.
If you were in a car would you have tried driving it? Probably not, that might be where the higher risk factor comes into it.
Not saying that you personally are a higher risk, but the insurance industry seems to think that we all are, I don't have the figures on the payouts, but hopefully they aren't just targeting us for the hell of it.
Sorry, didn't mean to make my comments sound personal, just from another view point, I'd be annoyed too if the company took there time paying out, not everyone can just go buy another vehicle before they get their insurancde money, and these companies fail to see that at times
I had been on that driveway about 17 times over the week leading up to the incadent, My estimates were about right and the water was at tyre level. I did get out and take a look also using the trees on the side and the marker in the distance as an estimation of the depth.
Unlike the way i bnormally drive i took it quite easy. just in case there was a hole and kepts a very close eye on the water level. after it rose above the tyres i decidecd it was enough and decided to back out but this was a little too late as mentioned as the jeep floated sideways and the engine stalled out.
I agree probibly lucky that the insurance paid out but then this is why I was paying top dollar for the premiums and why my excess was higher offroad than on. although a driveway is still onroad.
As for taking a car across if i was faced with the same situation I might not have as the windows are lower to the ground
.
At the time i felt i had taken all the care an precautions possible and that the crossing could be compleated safely taking in to account what i already knew about the area and checking the markings on the trees and at the other end. in hindsight maybe i made the wrong decision.
But If the O'Ring had been replaced in the distributor and the engine stayed running then im prety confident that i would not have ended up in the ditch toward the side of the drive and in deeper water even with the vehicle starting to float a little.
Unlike the way i bnormally drive i took it quite easy. just in case there was a hole and kepts a very close eye on the water level. after it rose above the tyres i decidecd it was enough and decided to back out but this was a little too late as mentioned as the jeep floated sideways and the engine stalled out.
I agree probibly lucky that the insurance paid out but then this is why I was paying top dollar for the premiums and why my excess was higher offroad than on. although a driveway is still onroad.
As for taking a car across if i was faced with the same situation I might not have as the windows are lower to the ground
.
At the time i felt i had taken all the care an precautions possible and that the crossing could be compleated safely taking in to account what i already knew about the area and checking the markings on the trees and at the other end. in hindsight maybe i made the wrong decision.
But If the O'Ring had been replaced in the distributor and the engine stayed running then im prety confident that i would not have ended up in the ditch toward the side of the drive and in deeper water even with the vehicle starting to float a little.
I can't complain about my insurance company, I got a new windscreen from them two months ago and was away over the new years period and broke the new one, rang them today and they said no problem, here is the number to give to the glass company.
Vero have looked after me very well, they are the sister company of who I work for though :tongue: :tongue: Big ups to VERO! :cheers: :cheers:
Vero have looked after me very well, they are the sister company of who I work for though :tongue: :tongue: Big ups to VERO! :cheers: :cheers:
Again, sorry if it looked like I was "having a go at you", obviously if we all knew the outcome would be bad in these sitiations, we wouldn't try these things, and there would be less need for insurance.
I was more trying to see it from a insurers point, as this is one of the main insurers that people recommend, and I'm sure that state (who I'm with) wouldn't insure me in the same situation.
I was more trying to see it from a insurers point, as this is one of the main insurers that people recommend, and I'm sure that state (who I'm with) wouldn't insure me in the same situation.
Re: 4WD Insurance
Being involved in car-sales, I have dealt with most insurance companies on behalf of customers, as well as my own insurance over the years.
I personally would never have anything to do with State again. I find them totally unhelpful, the hardest to deal with over the phone (on the incredibly rare occasions I have limitless time to wait to actually speak to someone) and get sick of hearing disgruntled customers complaining about poor payout experiences.
In my experience, the best to deal with are usually AMI, Tower and Lumleys, but most companies don't like 4WDs or youngsters. I don't say they are right, but I understand that they are a business that has to analyse risk and balance it against the perceived effect on premiums for other customers. eg. AMI charges moonbeams for youngsters and would rather not have them, as the provably high payouts have the potential to force them to increase premiums for other policy-holders.
I believe that National Auto Club specialise in insuring the otherwise un-insurable (eg. accident-prone 18 year-old turbo Subaru petrolheads), and therefore charge insanely high premiums because the customer has no other choice.
It's the old story; Insurance is most needed by those who can least afford it, and it's an expense you always hope you'll resent paying because you never needed it. I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier post, if the company is good to deal with, the cover's good and they pay out, the premium cost is not the important issue.
I personally would never have anything to do with State again. I find them totally unhelpful, the hardest to deal with over the phone (on the incredibly rare occasions I have limitless time to wait to actually speak to someone) and get sick of hearing disgruntled customers complaining about poor payout experiences.
In my experience, the best to deal with are usually AMI, Tower and Lumleys, but most companies don't like 4WDs or youngsters. I don't say they are right, but I understand that they are a business that has to analyse risk and balance it against the perceived effect on premiums for other customers. eg. AMI charges moonbeams for youngsters and would rather not have them, as the provably high payouts have the potential to force them to increase premiums for other policy-holders.
I believe that National Auto Club specialise in insuring the otherwise un-insurable (eg. accident-prone 18 year-old turbo Subaru petrolheads), and therefore charge insanely high premiums because the customer has no other choice.
It's the old story; Insurance is most needed by those who can least afford it, and it's an expense you always hope you'll resent paying because you never needed it. I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier post, if the company is good to deal with, the cover's good and they pay out, the premium cost is not the important issue.
'89 3-Dr scud. 2" body lift, 2" suspension, Snorkel, 31x10.5's, Evil-daughter chose the paint-job.