E
EMB
Guest
Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> Under your scheme ("your" meaning "NZs"), if you're sufficiently careless as
> to run into someone else's car and wreck it under conditions which make it
> clear that it was all or mostly your fault, who pays for the bloke's car?
> Does the scheme cover that as well, or is it down to you?
It's down to you - the ACC only covers injury and income replacement(
you receive 80% of your wage) if you're unable to work due to an
accident (of any type, whether it be a car accident or a rugby injury ar
anything in between).
Personally I'd like to see compulsory 3rd party insurance - having been
hit by an uninsured person recently it's cost me a fair bit of time to
help my insurance company pursue matters - until they recover the money
I've lost my excess. And the outcome has been the 3rd party being
ordered by the courts to repay the money to the insurance company at
about 4 quid a week so it'll be about 3 years before it's all recovered
and I get my share.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see some of the money we get ripped off in taxation
> for the privilege of running vehicles in this country diverted into a basic,
> no-frills third party insurance scheme, with realistic payouts (and no
> spurious claims for whiplash or bruising or other ****) for personal injury
> and covering the cost of claims to repair cars or other property where or to
> the extent that it's deemed to be the first party's fault. Anyone wanting
> theft, fire or comprehensive cover could then go and buy it in the open
> market as they do now.
Our totally 'no fault' ACC system works well for injury. But that sort
of thing won't work for material damage - if it's a blanket scheme
there's no way to penalise those with a bad record by charging them more
or a higher excess. Going back a few years we had a centralised blanket
3rd party scheme where the premium was charged as part of your vehicle
tax - it was abandoned at the request of the insurance industry for the
reasons above.
>
> I'd even support a modest increase in the road fund licence to make it
> include such a scheme.
>
> The insurance costs would need looking at - if you remove third party claims
> from the equation, the risk the insco is taking is smaller and as such the
> cover shoudl cost less. If this didn't happen, I'd favour the government
> leaning on the inscos or threatening to.
The actual loss figures here for 3rd party damage are fairly high -
third party only insurance costs about 35% of the premium for full
insurance and they don't give any form of NCB on it - so with my 60% NCB
I'm paying only fractionally more than the 3rd party price for full
cover. I'd not like to see the 3rd party component administered by the
state - they manage to introduce horrendous overheads into everything
they do so I expect that it would actually end up costing significantly
more if the 3rd party stuff was set up that way.
>
> Silly thing is, they have something a bit like this only much more limited
> in place anyway - There's something called the Motorists' uninsured loss
> scheme or somesuch, which is supposed to pay out for third party injuries
> caused by uninsured drivers. Dunno if it does.
--
EMB
>
> Under your scheme ("your" meaning "NZs"), if you're sufficiently careless as
> to run into someone else's car and wreck it under conditions which make it
> clear that it was all or mostly your fault, who pays for the bloke's car?
> Does the scheme cover that as well, or is it down to you?
It's down to you - the ACC only covers injury and income replacement(
you receive 80% of your wage) if you're unable to work due to an
accident (of any type, whether it be a car accident or a rugby injury ar
anything in between).
Personally I'd like to see compulsory 3rd party insurance - having been
hit by an uninsured person recently it's cost me a fair bit of time to
help my insurance company pursue matters - until they recover the money
I've lost my excess. And the outcome has been the 3rd party being
ordered by the courts to repay the money to the insurance company at
about 4 quid a week so it'll be about 3 years before it's all recovered
and I get my share.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see some of the money we get ripped off in taxation
> for the privilege of running vehicles in this country diverted into a basic,
> no-frills third party insurance scheme, with realistic payouts (and no
> spurious claims for whiplash or bruising or other ****) for personal injury
> and covering the cost of claims to repair cars or other property where or to
> the extent that it's deemed to be the first party's fault. Anyone wanting
> theft, fire or comprehensive cover could then go and buy it in the open
> market as they do now.
Our totally 'no fault' ACC system works well for injury. But that sort
of thing won't work for material damage - if it's a blanket scheme
there's no way to penalise those with a bad record by charging them more
or a higher excess. Going back a few years we had a centralised blanket
3rd party scheme where the premium was charged as part of your vehicle
tax - it was abandoned at the request of the insurance industry for the
reasons above.
>
> I'd even support a modest increase in the road fund licence to make it
> include such a scheme.
>
> The insurance costs would need looking at - if you remove third party claims
> from the equation, the risk the insco is taking is smaller and as such the
> cover shoudl cost less. If this didn't happen, I'd favour the government
> leaning on the inscos or threatening to.
The actual loss figures here for 3rd party damage are fairly high -
third party only insurance costs about 35% of the premium for full
insurance and they don't give any form of NCB on it - so with my 60% NCB
I'm paying only fractionally more than the 3rd party price for full
cover. I'd not like to see the 3rd party component administered by the
state - they manage to introduce horrendous overheads into everything
they do so I expect that it would actually end up costing significantly
more if the 3rd party stuff was set up that way.
>
> Silly thing is, they have something a bit like this only much more limited
> in place anyway - There's something called the Motorists' uninsured loss
> scheme or somesuch, which is supposed to pay out for third party injuries
> caused by uninsured drivers. Dunno if it does.
--
EMB
