Insurance excess for learner driver

• 

  pistachio1 on 30/10/2019 - 17:22

  +8

  I've never once in my life heard what the panel beater told you.

  Even though it totally sucks, what Budget has told you sounds correct to me. There's a reason the excess is so high - it's because learner drivers are more likely to have an accident.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 30/10/2019 - 22:17

    -2

    I've never once in my life heard what the panel beater told you.

    Just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean the panel beater is wrong. There is no age excess for a learner driver who is being supervised by a fully licensed driver over the age of 25 if you're insured with RACV or NRMA . Here's the NRMA FAQs and the RACV policy , Page 3.

    OP, in your case, it looks like the age excess does apply. There's a reason why Budget Direct is cheap. The wording regarding holding the Australian licence for less than 2 years is also confusing. It usually only applies to drivers who are over 25 years of age and has had a full licence for less than 2 years. Since it is BD though, I wouldn't be surprised if they insist on the extra $500 which will bring your total excess to $2000.

• 

  PissLUR on 30/10/2019 - 17:23

  +6

  900+600+500=$2,000

  https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/car-insurance-…

  If I make a car insurance claim, what will the excess be?

  Unless you or another driver of your car have a no-fault accident, you’ll be required to pay:

  your Basic Excess: the amount depends on the state/territory in which your car is kept; you may be able to increase or decrease it.
  

  ….as well as any additional excesses that apply, namely:

  driver is under 21 years of age
  driver is 21 to 24 years of age inclusive
  driver has not held a full Australian licence for at least two years
  driver is not listed on your insurance certificate
  vehicle has exceeded annual limit of 12,000km (applies only to ‘low-kilometres’ policies).
  

• 

  ozhunter on 30/10/2019 - 17:36

  +3

  The panel beater I took the car to said, because she does not have a full licence, she is driving as if she were me and the excess applied should only be my basic excess of $900

  How does that make any sense?

  • 

    gmail92 on 30/10/2019 - 18:18

    "Learner drivers are generally covered on your car insurance policy so long as a fully licensed driver is in the car as the instructing passenger in the front seat. Depending on your insurer, an age or inexperience excess may still apply if the learner driver has an accident."

    • 

      HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:35

      an age or inexperience excess may still apply if the learner driver has an accident.

• 

  Ughhh on 30/10/2019 - 17:43

  Budget Direct web page has my policy as : "Drivers who have held a full Australian licence for less than two years" To me, this means she must have a full license and held it for less than 2 years.

  That doesn't make sense, and I feel like you might be quoting out of context, kinda cherry picking.
  What does the whole excess part say? Something like "Excess applies if/for: Drivers who have held a full Australian licence for less than two years" ?

  • 

    pencilhead on 31/10/2019 - 11:33

    Hi - Under the policy for the car:
    Excess
    Basic Excess $900
    Window Glass only Excess $600

    Additional Excess
    Drivers under the age of 21 $600
    Drivers 21-24 years old inclusive $500
    Drivers who have held a full Australian licence for less than two years $500
    Unlisted Drivers $600

• 

  spackbace on 30/10/2019 - 17:47

  +6

  There's a reason Budget are cheap, and there's a reason the excess is high. Your daughter is highly likely to have an accident, so the excess is high.

  PS maybe it's time for a driving school, 1 who has a brake pedal on the passenger side…!

  • 

    mskeggs on 31/10/2019 - 07:26

    +1

    “Learner drivers under supervision on-road have a low risk of crash involvement, probably the lowest of all driver groups (33). “
    https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/h…

    I also assumed learners would have a high risk, but on reflection, both they and their instructors are highly observant and involved in driving.
    My insurer covers learners as if the instructor was driving. I website chatted to make sure I was reading the PDS correctly.

• 

  ozhunter on 30/10/2019 - 17:47

  Also I am disputing the "has not held a full Australian license for at least 2 years" as the Budget Direct web page has my policy as : "Drivers who have held a full Australian licence for less than two years" To me, this means she must have a full license and held it for less than 2 years.

  Doubt you'd win if you disputed it. This link says driver has not held a full Australian licence for at least two years

  • 

    pencilhead on 31/10/2019 - 11:36

    Thanks. I read that. Then the PDS says refer to your policy to see the excess. The excess only refers to someone who has had a FULL licence.

• 

  Donaldhump on 30/10/2019 - 17:48

  +2

  id be grateful it is covered at all to be honest.
  why would a learner driver have the same excess as the driver supervising, you don't have control of the car. id be satisfied with that excess, and outsource the driving lessons to an instructor and let their business wear the costs (if thats how it works).

• 

  [Deactivated] on 30/10/2019 - 18:22

  The panel beater I took the car to said, because she does not have a full licence, she is driving as if she were me and the excess applied should only be my basic excess of $900. ie. I am required to have zero blood alchohol etc and any policy conditions would apply as if I were driving and had the accident.

  My understanding is that this is only applicable in 2 situations:

  • if you have a dual-control modified car i.e with brake on the passenger side.
  • if you claim you were driving , which is insurance fraud.

  Hope she's ok.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 30/10/2019 - 22:53

    +1

    I apologise,I was wrong and your panel beater was partly right. I've just asked my wife , who once gave driving lessons to an ex-client so he could get a job sooner. Anyway , she said at the time she had to move to RACV because they were the only insurance who did not have an age excess clause for a learner driver who is accompanied by a fully licensed driver.

    This is what it says :

    Age excess

    This excess is paid in addition to any basic excess and applies to:

    • any driver under 25 years of age,

    • any driver 25 years of age or over with no more than 2 years driving experience after obtaining a provisional or probationary licence

    but does not apply to:

    • a learner driver who was accompanied by a fully licensed driver aged 25 years of age or more.

    If they had been in an accident , only the basic excess would have applied. This was confirmed by RACV in writing.

    But you're not with RACV. Instead you went with the cheapest insurer you could find in true ozbargain style :(

• 

  burgermaniac on 30/10/2019 - 19:35

  What your panel beater said is infact correct, atleast in NSW.

  I am a Provisional Driver in NSW. When I bought my car, while still being on my Ls, NRMA didn't care about me, as if I had an accident, it would be as if the instructor was driving. Therefore, the excess is the same, as if the instructor was driving the vehicle.

  This is because, according to Service NSW, even though the learner driver is in control of the vehicle, the instructor is still required to ensure that all manoeuvres are safe - being changing lanes, turns, speed management.

  TL:DR, whatever excess you would pay if you had an accident, is what I would expect you to have to pay in this scenario.

  • 

    spackbace on 30/10/2019 - 19:38

    the instructor is still required to ensure that all manoeuvres are safe - being changing lanes, turns, speed management.

    Except that the learner driver is still the one behind the wheel, in full control of the vehicle, with the ability to brake too late, speed, not look when changing lanes etc

    • 

      burgermaniac on 30/10/2019 - 21:23

      Yes, but the supervising driver is there to minimise the risk of a collision. The majority of collisions with provisional drivers are preventable crashes regarding; speed, lane management, positioning. As the supervising driver is there, it is meant to minimise the risks of these accidents.

      • 

        spackbace on 30/10/2019 - 21:55

        -1

        It's not a 'get out of jail free' card. A learner driver is in control of a vehicle, with the supervising passenger unable to hit the brakes, and may even be unable to apply the handbrake in the event of an emergency. Learner driver = high risk = high excess. Who's in the passenger seat has no effect on the risk of that learner driving.

• 

  Drew Peaballs on 30/10/2019 - 19:40

  +3

  Your basic excess of $900 is applicable upon any claim made at fault.

  -She is learning to drive the car, therefore an additional excess of $600(aged 16 - 20), or $500(aged 21 - 24) is applicable.

  -Total excess payable is $1500, if she is aged 16 - 20, or $1400 if she is aged 21 - 24.

  -As she is on your policy as a listed driver, on her learners, you do not need to pay any additional excess's. She does not have a full australian driving license, so that excess is not applicable.

  The claims assist person you're dealing with at Budget Direct is a potato. Pull up your policy to identify that she is clearly a listed driver, her date of birth is listed correctly. Listing learner drivers, or anyone 25 and under for that matter, increases your premium.

  Hope that clarifies things for you.

• 

  Aust on 30/10/2019 - 20:18

  As per disco above I second excess should be $1500

• 

  50cent on 30/10/2019 - 21:30

  -1

  you shoulda told them u were driving !!

  • 

    ProlapsedHeinous on 30/10/2019 - 22:39

    +1

    Nekk minit:

    they find out and insurance refused and blacklisted, and named shared among all other insurance providers…..

• 

  pegaxs on 30/10/2019 - 21:35

  Nah, you got it all wrong, OP. If a truck was involved, what you should be asking is “how do we blame the truck driver?” According to many on OzBargain, trucks are guilty by default.

  • 

    DuckKnight on 30/10/2019 - 22:49

    The truck driver obviously sped up and rammed their car when they were changing lanes.

    • 

      pegaxs on 30/10/2019 - 23:36

      Or “truck shouldn’t have been in that lane…”

• 

  mskeggs on 31/10/2019 - 07:34

  OP, I suggest doing a web chat anonymously with Budget.
  I asked 3 different insurers about this case when my child got her L’s.
  One said they treated the instructor as the driver, one said they applied the age excess, but not the less than 2yr period excess (one or the other) and the third had a specific excess for learners.

  Where it is ambiguous, the people trying to sell policies may give a different answer to those trying avoid paying out!

• 

  ShannonN on 31/10/2019 - 08:51

  First I hope your daughter and you were unhurt as well as the truck driver.
  I have no knowledge of the insurance system but am just making a comment

  You indicate your daughter hit a truck while merging? Was she charged with a driving offense as a result?

  As her instructor, (eyes, ears etc) were you charged with an offence?

  Seems you failed to watch for things she doesn't know about hidden blindspots variable speeds minimum safe distances.

  Not saying you can't drive but you are not trained to teach based on your own experiences.

  I hope you will now stop teaching, buy lessons for her so she can relax without the added pressure dad puts on her to perform as HE wants and protect other road users from momentary lapse with a safe dual controlled car. :)

  • 

    burgermaniac on 31/10/2019 - 11:16

    buy lessons for her so she can relax without the added pressure dad puts on her to perform as HE wants and protect other road users from momentary lapse with a safe dual controlled car. :)

    I agree, lessons are a great idea. However, the majority of instructors only focus on you passing the test, NOT teaching how to drive with heavy traffic, lane changing, night driving, those kinds of things.

• 

  brad1-8tsi on 31/10/2019 - 14:36

  When I taught my kids to drive the insurance company said that they were insured at the same excess as the instructing driver but the moment they got their Ps the age and experience clauses came into play

• 

  Blind-Spot on 01/11/2019 - 09:19

  I hope your daughter is okay following the crash and that her confidence hasn't taken too much of a hit moving forward.

  I'm a NSW driving instructor and am often asked about insurance coverage by parents supervising their teenagers. It's important to check in with your insurer before supervising a learner because policies do vary significantly. Most major insurers now recognise the fact learner drivers are statistically among the least represented in crashes and therefore charge little-to-no additional excess fees. However that's not the case with all as you've unfortunately discovered.

  On the day a learner driver passes the driving test, they transition from one of the least likely to be involved in a crash to the most likely and that's certainly reflected in ALL insurance premiums.

  Best wishes to you and your daughter with the remainder of the learn-to-drive process.

• 

  pencilhead on 19/11/2019 - 17:06

  I put in complaint to budget direct re: difference in wording. Took a couple of weeks for them to get back to me.
  They agreed there was a discrepancy and reduced excess by $500.

  Thanks all :)