Not at Fault Motorbike Accident. Personal Belongings Cover

• 

  EBG on 12/10/2023 - 10:16

  +1

  Claiming against accidental damage in contents insurance could be another option if you can’t claim through the channels you mentioned?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 12/10/2023 - 10:22

  +1

  Does your relative not have comprehensive motorcycle insurance that covers riding gear?

  If so, the relative can just lodge a claim through their insurance. It's not at fault so no excess will need to be paid. Easier than dealing with TAC and/or RACV.

  If they don't have insurance and purely relying on RACV/TAC, then I'm going to guess they have zero obligation to cover personal items/riding gear, and only fix the bike.

  Also, mobile phone for mental health purposes? What? That's a no from me.

  • 

    Mr Random on 12/10/2023 - 10:36

    Relative has comprehensive. I was under the impression that even in a no fault scenario, excess would need to be paid as you are the one making the claim. But good to know if that is not the case! All their gear was covered under the not at fault drivers (RACV) insurance, which is why we followed up with them for the mobile.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 12/10/2023 - 10:41

      Mobile phone isn't riding gear, so no, it wouldn't be covered. Personal items are ever rarely covered. As previously mentioned, contents insurance (as long as it has accidental cover) may be an avenue.

      If you read the Insurance PDS, it will state the scenarios around no fault scenarios and not needing to pay the excess. Usually it's name, address and registration details.

      Standard policy is:
      - At fault/driver unidentified: pay excess
      - Not at fault/at fault driver identified: don't pay excess

      • 

        Mr Random on 12/10/2023 - 10:44

        +1

        Thanks, I'm reading through the PDS now.
        I've been with bad insurance companies in the past where stye flat out require you to pay excess even when not at fault.
        Better to pay the bit extra for better insurers (I think there is such a thing? :)).

        Seems $1000 cover for personal belongings, and no excess for not at fault.

        • 

          [Deactivated] on 12/10/2023 - 10:47

          +2

          @Mr Random: You definitely get what you pay for when it comes to insurance.

          And cool, happy you found the info :)

• 

  barge-in hunter on 12/10/2023 - 10:27

  In my experience, my own insurance policies (comprehensive but also sometimes 3rd party) has had limited inclusions for personal items and my gear - which I assume they would simply chase the other party for.

  Does the family member have comprehensive insurance? I don't know why, but by the way I'm reading it RACV is the at fault driver's insurance - and your family member might not have their own?

  So you have two options:
  1. claim through the family member's insurance (if there's coverage?), or
  2. push RACV with a line like "I don't care what your customer's insurance policy covers - this is what's required to make me whole again", and escalate to the insurance ombudsmen if needed.

  Not sure why you're trying to get TAC to cover personal belongings - it's super unlikely they will as they're about medical cover, not personal belongs/vehicles/etc

  • 

    Mr Random on 12/10/2023 - 10:33

    Agreed that TAC should not have to cover the mobile. Just the runaround from RACVs side.
    Relative has full comp, so that is an avenue. Although I assumed this will be a claim on their record along with paying excess, and potentially higher premiums in future for a phone. Might be better off to pay for a new phone outright in that case.

    Will take a look into this, thanks!

    • 

      barge-in hunter on 12/10/2023 - 10:35

      +1

      No problem;

      Not at fault claims should not in any way impact their insurance premiums, and they'll definitely not have to pay an excess. Definitely the best avenue

• 

  bargaino on 12/10/2023 - 10:27

  TAC is injuries.
  "phone for mental health" ha, what a joke. Everybody is addicted to their phone.

  Post is unclear. Does neither party have comprehensive cover? They may need to make their own claim in court.
  This is why I have comprehensive, even though I could easily pay to replace my shitty old car.

  What insurance does your "relative" have?

  • 

    Mr Random on 12/10/2023 - 10:34

    Updated post for clarification. Agree with you on the TAC route RACV suggested being a joke.

• 

  bargaino on 12/10/2023 - 10:52

  +1

  EDIT2 Clarification, relative (not at fault) has comprehensive, other driver comprehensive via RACV.

  OK. You just claim everything through your own insurer. Limits should not apply for "not at fault". If they refuse, come back here.
  Its the same with hiring a replacement vehicle if not at fault. Other party is liable, and your insurer should sort the claim.

  disclaimer: IANAV

  • 

    Mr Random on 12/10/2023 - 11:18

    Yeh, PDS and RACV stating even when not at fault, a mobile is not covered under personal items.

    • 

      bargaino on 12/10/2023 - 15:34

      What matters is that the other party's insurance covers liability, which includes your phone.

• 

  MS Paint on 12/10/2023 - 10:55

  +1

  If you have comprehensive insurance and not at fault it is still best (in my experience anyway) to still claim through your own insurance. Let them do all the work and extract the funds back from the other party. That's what you pay them for.

  Edit: bargaino beat me to it

  Edit 2: IANAL

  Edit 3: I'm also not a lawyer.

• 

  Drakesy on 12/10/2023 - 11:45

  +2

  The other insurer will have to pay out anything that was damaged in the crash that includes clothing/belongings.
  RACV sound like they're being lazy.

  • 

    dasher86 on 12/10/2023 - 12:01

    +2

    Agree.
    You can probably send a further letter of demand to the at fault party, which they will probably forward onto RACV.