This week we did some online comparisons for comprehensive insurance for our car. Currently with NRMA, we thought $780 was a bit steep (+$86 on last year), so hunted around the various companies we could think of, but all were similar or more expensive, so stayed with NRMA. In the process I noticed this gem in the QBE online quoting form:
If your vehicle is stolen or damaged accidentally and wasn’t being driven by a listed driver, you have to pay an unlisted driver excess.
Surely if it is stolen, it isn’t being driven by a listed driver?
Perhaps you should consult a psychic when you insure it to foretel who will steal your car, then you could list them as a driver!
I expect undeclared drivers would means one that you let drive as the PDS also states:
It is your responsibility to notify us of drivers of your vehicle because your premium or excess could be affected.
It would be a bit ridiculous if you have to ask the thief to wait until you have registered them with QBE.
Indeed it would, but the wording says you have to pay an undeclared driver excess if an unlisted driver stole it. So either hire the psychic, or ask the thief to give his details so they can be added to the list, neither of which is going to work!
So you pay the extra excess if the car is stolen. I wonder if they take the age of the thief into account- given the huge excess, or premium increase, you have to pay for L or P drivers, that could be a significant amount of money.
It’s another way insurance companies reduce their payout.
I’d think they mean if it is stolen while in the care of an unlisted driver - ie unlisted driver takes it to supermarket - car stolen from supermarket … but if you drive it to supermarket and you are a listed driver then no excess. Same if you’ve parked it in your driveway … you are listed and it’s under your care so to speak …
Perhaps they do, but I’m just going on their wording, which talks about driving, rather than ‘in the care of’.
I don’t trust insurance companies to do the right thing, most reports from unhappy customers are about them worming their way out of payouts in any devious way they can!
I read it as quite clear although for a legal term the usage of “or/and” in same sentence is fairly poor.
If your (vehicle “is” stolen or damaged accidentally) and ( wasn’t “being” driven by a listed driver), you have to pay an unlisted driver excess.
I see a quite clear sentence that “being” is past tense (certainly doesn’t refer to a thief driving)
and “Is” current tense stolen,
It says if an unlisted driver was driving the vehicle and “is” Car Jacked, “is” damaged (driving accident or stationery/parked), “is” stolen while parked
The last person “being” the driver the vehicle was unlisted then the event is classified as an unlisted driver event.
But overall I think the term is fair
“Unlisted” Chuck borrows my car;
Parks it at a shopping centre and is then crashed into by a reversing car.
or Car is stolen from said Shopping centre
The “Unlisted” may not have taken due diligence to park well.
It does sound little unfair in that is doesn’t mention what happens when
“Unlisted” Chuck borrows my car;
returns it to my Garage of my house;
then it is stolen from my house, since I was not the ‘last’ driver.
It also possibly comes down to the reasonable person test. Assuming I am a reasonable person, I would think the following:
A unlisted person would be one that you gave consent to drive the vehicle. This means that you have accepted the provision in the PDS which indicates that should that person result in a claim being made on the vehicle, the unlisted person excess would need to be paid.
A thief is not a person who has gained consent to drive the vehicle and has committed an offence in doing so. As it is an offence, one could expect than any unlawful drivers would not need to be listed with the insurance company and therefore the unlisted driver excess would not apply.