Bizarre accident

FlashSA said:
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.
Click to expand...

So both employees are responsible for their own vehicles and both need to pay the excess.

One of the employees will get their excess returned upon completion of the claim/investigation/court case.

The company can't just decide who must pay and who is guilty.
 
The insurance company is not going to return any excess I can assure you. Because both vehicles were driven by employees of the insured company, there is no party for the insurance company to claim back from.
 
FlashSA said:
The insurance company is not going to return any excess I can assure you. Because both vehicles were driven by employees of the insured company, there is no party for the insurance company to claim back from.
Click to expand...


Yes there is, the company.
 
FlashSA said:
The insurance company is not going to return any excess I can assure you. Because both vehicles were driven by employees of the insured company, there is no party for the insurance company to claim back from.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make you magically except from paying the excess in the first place or deciding who is the guilty party.

You have a company car and part of those conditions is paying the excess of R3000 if that vehicle is in an accident.

Well it was in an accident...so pay the excess.
 
FlashSA said:
The insurance company is not going to return any excess I can assure you. Because both vehicles were driven by employees of the insured company, there is no party for the insurance company to claim back from.
Click to expand...

I agree with Claymore - the insurance company should either:
1) treat this as 1 claim - as technically its only one incident
2) return 1 excess to the party not at fault - i'm not aware of any clause stating that if 2 company assets are involved in a single incident that 2 excesses are payable? that sound punitive and i'm sure the ombudsman would not allow it.
 
FlashSA said:
You are not making sense. Insurer does not claim back from its own client.
Click to expand...

I agree - they would not claim back from the insured when its the same as the claimant. However, I maintain per my previous post, that its only 1 incident, and therefore only 1 claim, and therefore only 1 excess.

Why should this be treated any different that if the cars were parked in the work parking lot, a wall falls down and damages both. You'd not lodge 2 claims in that case, why is this different?
 
Should it be treated as one incident then yes no excess will be claimed. I would be surprised if it is though so it was a moving accident with 2 vehicles. Who those vehicles are insured with is ultimately irrelevant in terms of the number of claims lodged
 
Yesterday I had the insurance assessor around. This morning my chosen bodyworks phones me to inform me that Hollard HQ are insisting that both vehicles be stripped for further assessment. What this would mean is that the vehicles, which only incurred visible damage, would be out of action for a month at least when it is totally unnecessary considering all bodyworks were able to quote just by looking and the original assessor was happy. If we were to take them in for stripping, they would then sit for at least 2 weeks thereafter while parts are ordered and a booking slot at the workshop became available.

Needless to say I was not impressed and firmly told the broker to show me what they get commission for.

An hour later, the bodyworks were given full go ahead to repair and Hollard HQ had received a firm tongue lashing.

The arrogance of some insurance companies boggles the mind!
 
ponder said:
Hollard, heard some real horror stories about that company.
Click to expand...

Our business deals with many insurance companies on behalf of clients for their claims. We used to be with Zurich but they went downhill so we moved to Etana which were good. Recently, Hollard has taken over Etana and things have gone downhill very fast.

We may need to look at moving to Santam as they are very very good at the moment and authorise our client's claims the same day.
 
FlashSA said:
Our business deals with many insurance companies on behalf of clients for their claims. We used to be with Zurich but they went downhill so we moved to Etana which were good. Recently, Hollard has taken over Etana and things have gone downhill very fast.

We may need to look at moving to Santam as they are very very good at the moment and authorise our client's claims the same day.
Click to expand...

Ja I would seriously look at moving.
 
FlashSA said:
You are not making sense. Insurer does not claim back from its own client.
Click to expand...

If it's the same insurance company for both clients, then yes, they do, even if it's essentially an accounting entry in the company's books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X