Bizarre accident

[IzZzy]

Because if he was at fault he caused damage to work property, an excess is the uninsured portion of the loss. A loss the company incurs as a result of the employees action.

Except that isn't what excess is. Read up above. It is to discourage and avoid people claiming for trivial amounts which costs the insurance company more to deal with than actually pay out.

 

[KalMaverick]

snip

Except that isn't what excess is. Read up above. It is to discourage and avoid people claiming for trivial amounts which costs the insurance company more to deal with than actually pay out.

Okay, please comment on this then.

http://www.osti.co.za/excess.html

From the ombudsman for short-term insurance.

The true nature of an excess is this - the insured agrees to bear a certain proportion of the loss, or a certain amount of the loss in respect of every claim. There can be various types and various amounts of excesses depending on the circumstances of the claim, the nature of the loss, the age of the insured driver, etc., but in principle they all have the same attribute - i.e. that in respect of the amount of the excess or excesses, the insured does not in fact carry any insurance at all. S/He is in exactly the same position in regard to that excess as if he or she had not taken out any insurance policy.

However, to go back to the beginning, this does not then prevent the insured, if satisfied that the accident was due to the other party's negligence, and s/he is prepared to take the risk, from suing the third party for the recovery of the amount of his or her excess, with the agreement of the insurer.

Now again I might not be understanding correctly but an excess is not as you describe 'an administrative expense' but actually a loss as a result of a portion you aren't insuring.

Are you saying the ombudsman is wrong?

Now please explain (simple terms cause I'm a layman) how a person can recover that cost in court if then?

How then can a employee not be held responsible for damages not recovered?

So what? In return for agreeing to pay an excess, the company's insurable premia is less. You expect the company to benefit twice? That isn't fair.

What? No. The company pays less premiums because it is 'insured for less'.

What is the position if I agree an excess of R50 000 in return for low insurance premia - does that mean over and above the damage the other negligent party caused, my insurer or I can recover an additional R50 000? This is absurd.

No, the insurance company didn't incur the full amount of damages. You covered most of it with the excess. Therefore they will recover a small amount and the rest will be excess.

I stand to be proven wrong, though. If I am wrong, I am increasing my excess to R50 000 and heaven help the person who crashes into me. Hell, I'll make it R100 000 as long as I have a cash buffer to settle my excess should it arise.

No you won't. Please tell me mathematically how that even makes sense.

 

[IzZzy]

Okay, please comment on this then.

Interesting. Excess as a concept has become a form of self-insurance. If that is the position as it appears in your contract, then so be it.

The key bit of that paragraph to highlight is this, however:

There can be various types and various amounts of excesses depending on the circumstances of the claim, the nature of the loss, the age of the insured driver, etc.

.

The excesses that I know of operate on the principles set out by myself above. That is certainly the best because it removes the obligation on you to separately recover the amount of your excess. I.e. you are not a self-insurer. The insurer is in the exact same position economically.

If your excess operates as how you describe it (1) you would need to separately sue for it. Small claims court is probably your best bet. But you will need the consent of your insurer to do so - which shouldn't be an issue; and (2) the employee would be responsible for damages for which the insurer did not cover.

Separately, the insurer is fully entitled to claim, in turn, from the employee the whole amount of the damages (less the excess portions).

 

[ponder]

Save for company policy, I do not see any reason in law why the employee would have to pay any excess, let alone both. It is a company expense (as the company is the insured party and the one making the claim).

Some companies make their employees pay for toilet paper....

 

[IzZzy]

Some companies make their employees pay for toilet paper....

I used to pay R1000 per month just to park at work, so I can relate.

 

[KalMaverick]

@IzZzy

The excess is the amount payable by you in the event of a claim and is known as the uninsured portion of your claim. The excess is agreed upfront when you take out your policy and can be either a flat or fixed amount, such as R3 000, or a percentage-based amount, such as five percent of the claim.

For example, if the excess amount stipulated in your insurance policy is a fixed R3 000 and you are in an accident and the damages to your car are R50 000, you would have to pay R3 000 and your insurer would pay the remaining R47 000. If your excess is five percent, you would have to pay R2 500 and the insurer would pay R47 500.

http://www.iol.co.za/business/personal-finance/vehicle-insurance-excesses-1.1218459#.U6KowLEvh_t

As I said, Budget (so they say) will try to recover R50 000, they will keep R47' and refund you R3'. If they only try to recover R47' then you will try recover the R3' yourself.

So I was correct in my understanding.

Do you still say the employee shouldn't pay both excess amounts (assuming that he was negligent)?

 

[ToxicBunny]

@IzZzy







As I said, Budget (so they say) will try to recover R50 000, they will keep R47' and refund you R3'. If they only try to recover R47' then you will try recover the R3' yourself.

So I was correct in my understanding.

Do you still say the employee shouldn't pay both excess amounts (assuming that he was negligent)?

Personally, if they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was negligent then make him pay both excesses, BUT its that proving aspect that is going to be tricky in my opinion, and to do so without proving it would be massively wrong and open the company up to potential issues further down the line as well as possibly make a valuable employee unhappy and move on.

 

[FlashSA]

I used to pay R1000 per month just to park at work, so I can relate.

Some companies make their employees pay for toilet paper....

This is the thing. We are a good employer with minimal staff turn over / resignations. We have provided the guy with a work vehicle including fuel to go home in in the evenings as part of his contract with us. My conscience is clear with regards to him being liable for that vehicle's excess.

With regards to the second excess due, it will come down to a management discussion at a later stage.

 

[ToxicBunny]

This is the thing. We are a good employer with minimal staff turn over / resignations. We have provided the guy with a work vehicle including fuel to go home in in the evenings as part of his contract with us. My conscience is clear with regards to him being liable for that vehicle's excess.

With regards to the second excess due, it will come down to a management discussion at a later stage.

You seem to be missing the point on at least my arguments, by possibly attempting to make him liable for the second excess, you need some kind of evidence of negligence, not just a management meeting decision. You would then be presuming liability with no evidence and that would be very legally problematic for your company should it get messy.

 

[IzZzy]

@IzZzy

So I was correct in my understanding.

Do you still say the employee shouldn't pay both excess amounts (assuming that he was negligent)?

You are correct if that is how your insurance contract is drafted, yes. As I said, I had a different understanding of my previous insurance contract.

If he is 100% liable, then of course he must pay both excesses. He is also liable for the amount of the damage too, should the insurer wish to recover this from him.

This is where personal liability insurance for yourself is absolutely key. That employee is screwed if the insurer recovers the loss from him.

 

[FlashSA]

You seem to be missing the point on at least my arguments, by possibly attempting to make him liable for the second excess, you need some kind of evidence of negligence, not just a management meeting decision. You would then be presuming liability with no evidence and that would be very legally problematic for your company should it get messy.

I do hear where you are coming from. That is why "company brains" will chat about it and decide on the best\fairest\legal course of action.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I do hear where you are coming from. That is why "company brains" will chat about it and decide on the best\fairest\legal course of action.

At least that will happen..

and there is no best/fairest...it is purely legal.

**EDIT**

Granted there is then the future consequences to the employee/company that do need to be taken into account, but that should only be considered after the legal aspects have been considered.

 

[DTBA]

Did my k53 not long ago and yes its 2 seconds ... but still to crap to stop

The minimum 2-second following distance in 'normal' conditions is based on the K53 driving test requirements and some books give this as a guide in the learner's licence section. Driving experts maintain that this is to short anyway. -

 

[Rocket-Boy]

This is the thing. We are a good employer with minimal staff turn over / resignations. We have provided the guy with a work vehicle including fuel to go home in in the evenings as part of his contract with us. My conscience is clear with regards to him being liable for that vehicle's excess.

With regards to the second excess due, it will come down to a management discussion at a later stage.

To be honest I would be taking your exact stance on this.
If it was someone unrelated to the company they would pay the excess as it was their fault and their insurance would repair your car.
The circumstances are different here but it was their fault and they should be responsible for all of the excess required to sort it out.

 

[Pitbull]

Did my k53 not long ago and yes its 2 seconds ... but still to crap to stop

2 seconds is more than enough for 2 moving vehicles.

Remember the one in front also has to brake hard and will have the same braking distance as you. You have 2 seconds to react and break hard yourself. You should still be stopping a distance from each other in relation to the 2sec following distance. The same doesn't apply if the front car doesn't stop and just comes to a dead stop by hitting something stationary.

 

[k-4]

For a bizarre accident that's nothing, this is how pros do it:

http://list25.com/25-car-accidents-that-dont-make-any-sense/

 

[supersunbird]

2 seconds is more than enough for 2 moving vehicles.

Remember the one in front also has to brake hard and will have the same braking distance as you. You have 2 seconds to react and break hard yourself. You should still be stopping a distance from each other in relation to the 2sec following distance. The same doesn't apply if the front car doesn't stop and just comes to a dead stop by hitting something stationary.

Yes, till the vehicle in front hits a stationary object (misplaced concrete barrier or lost truck load) and you hit them because there was no "car braking in front".

3 second minimum is the gap recommended internationally.

And you will get clowns on this forum saying "nah, I just use car lengths" to know.

 

[Claymore]

Just thinking about the excess. Assume damage on each car is R50K, and excess is R3K.

FlashZA submits claim to insurance for R50K. Insurance pays R47K for repairs, and FlashZA has to pay R3K excess.
Employee submits claim to insurance for R50K. Insurance pays R47K for repairs, and Employee has to pay R3K excess.
Then Insurance claims from Employee's Insurance (which just happens to be the same company) for R50K - R47K for panelbeater and R3K for FlashZA reimbursement.

Why would Employee be liable for FlashZA's excess, which Insurance should have claimed and returned to him? Insurance certainly can't bill Employee with a R6K excess.

 

[FlashSA]

Just thinking about the excess. Assume damage on each car is R50K, and excess is R3K.

FlashZA submits claim to insurance for R50K. Insurance pays R47K for repairs, and FlashZA has to pay R3K excess.
Employee submits claim to insurance for R50K. Insurance pays R47K for repairs, and Employee has to pay R3K excess.
Then Insurance claims from Employee's Insurance (which just happens to be the same company) for R50K - R47K for panelbeater and R3K for FlashZA reimbursement.

Why would Employee be liable for FlashZA's excess, which Insurance should have claimed and returned to him? Insurance certainly can't bill Employee with a R6K excess.

Both vehicles owned by my company. Both insured by my company. Therefore only 1 party involved in this accident and that is my company.

Drivers liable for excess per road traffic rules \ who was at fault.

 

[Claymore]

Both vehicles owned by my company. Both insured by my company. Therefore only 1 party involved in this accident and that is my company.

Drivers liable for excess per road traffic rules \ who was at fault.

The insurance company has to deal with the claims as if they're separate claims, just as if family members have an accident and happen to be with the same insurance company. If, as the company, you require Employee to pay to the company both excesses, and the insurance company makes the full claim on the insurance company, then the insurance will return to the company the amount of the excess it recovered in the claim. So:
Company pays insurance R6K in excess (3K for FlashZA and 3K for Employee)
Employee pays R6K to company in reimbursement of excess paid to insurance for both parties.
Insurance makes successful claim (on itself, as it happens, but that doesn't matter).
Insurance returns 3K excess claimed from guilty party's insurance to company.

So now the company has scored 3K off the employee, since they're only out of pocket 3K.