i'm pretty sure they won't pay out - i was always under the impression no current licence = no insurance

she's not covered
read your policy though - I don't get why you'd post on here

I don't get why you'd post on here

cause our internet is stuffed and i can only view one page every once in a while.

lodge your claim and just play dumb/innocent. Don't mention it unless they do. Maybe you get lucky.. else, hopefully the damage isn't too expensive :o

lodge the claim, if they ask tell them the truth if they don't so be it...

its strange cause years ago when i had a suspended licence for DUI i insured my car for the purpose of other people driving it.

they told me (racq at the time) i was covered even though i had no licence.
i did the 'you are kidding arent you' and they said you are covered but the excess would just be enormous.

Licence renewed - thank you for the reminder! It's so easy to do online.

actually you're all wrong, if her license had been canceled/suspended she doesn't have any insurance
but it was just expired, she still has a license - just not valid

she can go get her license today so she wasn't exempt from driving, she should lodge the claim as normal

I would have thought that to be allowed to drive, you have to have a valid driver's license. Maybe I'm wrong...

I think you're probably f***ed mate. Suncorp's PDS states explicity:

We will not pay a claim for an event occurring when your vehicle is being driven by, or is in the charge of,
anyone who:
� was under the influence of, or had their judgement affected by any alcohol, drug or medication
� had more than the legal limit of alcohol in their breath or blood, as shown by analysis
� refused to take a legal test for alcohol, drugs or medication or
� was not licensed, not correctly licensed or not complying with conditions of their licence.

This seems to clearly include expired licenses, and no doubt its a pretty common condition. You might get away with playing dumb...

last edited by Hogfather at 15:39:33 26/Oct/09

So how much damage did you do?

Same for if they can just stall you long enough that you give up.

It's a numbers thing. If .0001% of people don't claim when they're first rejected or based on their reputation for being sticklers, they're lying on big piles of money with hookers and blow.

That certainly makes sense, but teq's comment seems to disagree???

FWIW I was with a mate who wrote his car off on whilst suspended on his licence coming back from a doof after 2 days...insurance company did not check his details and he was paid out in full for the write off

I also work in insurance and can assure you that the people running this place couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery I reckon there's a good chance you'll get away with it...

if your insurance company is anything like the insurance company i work for then claim = denied.

unless you get lucky and they don't check, but as people have already mentioned it will be in the police report.

I also work in insurance and can assure you that the people running this place couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery I reckon there's a good chance you'll get away with it...

sounds like where i work!

even if the accident is 100% the other persons fault and you dont have a license then your to blame cause you shouldnt have been on the road and therefore the accident wouldnt have happened.

k after considering your responses, I've decided that it's ok that you're asking qgl about this issue
please continue

they also didnt issue her with a fine for following too closely which is standard procedure when you run into someone.

How can something be standard procedure when there's so many factors to take into account?

jeez whats the go with all the knit picking.

ok maybe not standard procedure but generally they conclude running into the back of someone as following too closely.
or so im led to believe

teehee

sell me your cutie wifey sleepy i'm all the insurance she needs

You won't b e covered if the insurance company knows you are unlicensed to drive the vehicle, regardless of if it was an accident or not.

They weren't exactly unlicensed, just let their licence lapse. Is this the same thing? It's just it didn't feel like the same thing when I let mine lapse and renewed it some months later.

This thread is full of insurance company negativity that normally I'd jump on, but the people that work for them aren't all money grabbing filthy corporates. I can't go in to details but A Friend had a large at fault claim ($200k+) with very lapsed insurance and they came through.

My advice would be, assuming you are in the same sort of ballpark and not just a $2k dingger is call up and speak to them. Be very polite. If your mrs is suitably upset and scared have her explain what happened. Go over it a few times. Be worried.

hopefully you have an insurer with local understanding staff not Indians. It's a person on the other end of the line listening to your troubles. They may relate. They may help if they can.

pics of wife or lying

The reason being that you not having a valid license, was not the cause of your accident, i.e. you were still a competent enough driver.

Sleepy's wife was at fault, as she hit the back of the car in front of her, who nudged the car in front of it. (W -> C2 -> C3->). So her being unlicensed has everything to do with the accident as she was not supposed to be driving a car.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the cause of the accident, the cause of the accident was her following too closely.

Your argument while by the strictest of rules is correct. But this society we live in works with many exceptions to every rule, and this is one.

I'm not just speaking s***, i do believe its been run through court many times, and has always come out as i said, the court looks at WHY it wasn't valid at the time. It simply being lapsed, is not a good enough reason to not pay the claim.

But yeah, as others have said, i wouldn't go out of my to mention it to the insurer.

last edited by giririsss at 10:04:07 27/Oct/09

You are so horribly incorrect and just from that post you show a very poor understanding of insurance law in Australia.

Policies are not just interpreted as the black and white written on the page, but also the intent of the words. The intent of that exclusion is to not have to pay out claims on people who have had their license suspended for doing something dangerous, who have had their license cancelled after being ruled unfit to drive, or if you were not complying with any condition of the license (such as wearing glasses). It is not there to punish someone who is otherwise completely competent, but forgot to renew their license and as such, it has expired.

He wouldn't even have to push it to court as it was a private vehicle, he should have access to EDR (external dispute resolution) using the FOS. And the FOS are VERY heavily consumer biased.

last edited by giririsss at 12:20:49 27/Oct/09

lodge the claim, if they ask tell them the truth if they don't so be it...

insurance law also include the principle of uberrimae fides which means you must disclose all relevant facts to your insurer that may not be in their knowledge.

Are there penalties for not fessing up if they find out later in some sort of devious data sharing exercise?

They can only sue for non-disclosure and affect the policy / claim to the amount that their interest has been prejudiced.

Intent comes into every inch of a PDS, not just in ambiguity. But most times the intent is just very clear and obvious.

It's a claim, and it'll be paid. if the insurer tries not to i'd take it to the FOS straight away.

Haha burn.

yeah, not being able to benefit from insurance cover if you drive your car while unlicensed is a very confusing and unnatural concept.

or if you were not complying with any condition of the license

Like, for instance, driving outside the Expiry Date?

You are so horribly incorrect and just from that post you show a very poor understanding of insurance law in Australia. Policies are not just interpreted as the black and white written on the page, but also the intent of the words. The intent of that exclusion is to not have to pay out claims on people who have had their license suspended for doing something dangerous, who have had their license cancelled after being ruled unfit to drive, or if you were not complying with any condition of the license (such as wearing glasses). It is not there to punish someone who is otherwise completely competent, but forgot to renew their license and as such, it has expired. He wouldn't even have to push it to court as it was a private vehicle, he should have access to EDR (external dispute resolution) using the FOS. And the FOS are VERY heavily consumer biased. last edited by giririsss at 12:20:49 27/Oct/09

Mate,

I'm not really interested in debating the law with you.

sleepy put the question out there for feedback.

I only replied because I work in the insurance industry, and in my role, i see claims lodged like this on a daily basis, and i'm speaking from real experience of what i've seen happen in these cases - what actually happens when someone tries to make a claim like this.

I'm not theorising, or saying what could & couldn't apply. I'm telling him what happens in the real world.

It really depends who he is insured with, as some insurers are much more leniant then others.

I hope he gets his claim fulfilled, but his chances are slim.

Good luck sleepy!

I only replied because I work in the insurance industry, and in my role, i see claims lodged like this on a daily basis, and i'm speaking from real experience of what i've seen happen in these cases - what actually happens when someone tries to make a claim like this.

I have no doubt many insurance companies (particularly major general lines/private sections) do try and decline these claims hoping the person knows no better. Or, (and is more likely the case) the claims staff have not been properly or thoroughly trained as alot of them see exceptionally high turnovers in their claims sections.

I'm just pointing out, they shouldn't be.

I met giri ... he's just into wearing scotch as it attracts the ladies

So what? There are two issues in this discussion: the position at law (which needs to be enforced via a court ruling), and the position commercially which is often effected by consumer authority rulings, conciliation or industry arbitration. Giri is simply stating his experience, fade is stating his understanding at law.

is that so difficult for your to accept?

So what? There are two issues in this discussion: the position at law (which needs to be enforced via a court ruling), and the position commercially which is often effected by consumer authority rulings, conciliation or industry arbitration. Giri is simply stating his experience, fade is stating his understanding at law. is that so difficult for your to accept?

I have no problem with that. No need to tell me that i'm "so horribly wrong", or have such a poor understanding of the insurance laws.
He's stating what he believes is true under the law.

I'm stating what happens on a daily basis when people try to make claims with insurance companies in these areas.

If 100 people try to lodge a claim in the exact same case as sleepy, and 99 of them are refused, then his claim that i am "so horribly wrong" about this matter would be registered null & void.

He immediately dismisses what i've said as wrong with absolutely nothing to back it up. He's not a lawyer. What does he know?

I'm not a lawyer either, and my understanding of the insurance laws isn't great, and i'm happy to admit that. In my job role I don't have a high need for an understanding of the laws, i'll leave that to the disputes and legal areas.

I'm simply letting sleepy know, based on my experience in the industry, that his hopes are not high.

Is that so difficult for you to accept?

wow, whats going on here.

thanks heaps for the feedback everyone.
in favour or against. its good to hear.

insurance rang her this arvo and have started repairs on her car. they gave her a date it will be ready.
reluctant to think its good news but im guessing how we werent really consulted on getting quotes or authorizing repair has gotta help a bit right.

btw jim it appears posting here was quite productive and promoted quite a discussion.

ps still bowing and cowering in appropriate fear and admiration.