nathanm
Eats Squid
yep that makes sense. they've always been like that.AAMI. I've since changed all my policies
yep that makes sense. they've always been like that.AAMI. I've since changed all my policies
It's this one:View attachment 396578
View attachment 396579
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/hobart-cbd/men-s-bicycles/down-hill-push-bike-/1307723280
This seems maybe a bit sus... But if it’s not that’s a cracking deal
My AAMI renewal is up in the next month. They sneakily upped the construction cost to over $150k more while simultaneously removing the specified items I had listed in my previous years policy. Looks like you can no longer do this manually online and you have to call them up. I suspect a fair few folks have been putting claims in and they are trying to reduce exposure to this. For me this is a deal breaker, If someone were to rob me, the bikes would be first cab off the rank. Easy to steal, easy to sell, hard to track. Given the price of bikes lately and my extensive collection can't chance it.AAMI. I've since changed all my policies
I was already investigating other options and found GIO to be cheaper with seemingly comparable cover. Just as I was getting ready to switch I got my renewal notice from AAMI for my home insurance and they had put the premium up by $400 making my switch even more cost effective. Plus they were c*nts.My AAMI renewal is up in the next month. They sneakily upped the construction cost to over $150k more while simultaneously removing the specified items I had listed in my previous years policy. Looks like you can no longer do this manually online and you have to call them up. I suspect a fair few folks have been putting claims in and they are trying to reduce exposure to this. For me this is a deal breaker, If someone were to rob me, the bikes would be first cab off the rank. Easy to steal, easy to sell, hard to track. Given the price of bikes lately and my extensive collection can't chance it.
cost of replacing your home increases even through the actual cost of the physical home depreciates. If its covered for less than what it costs to replace when you make a claim (for full rebuild, lik ein the event of a fully burned down home), you don't get the lesser amount, you're considered underinsured and are likely to have the claim declinedMy AAMI renewal is up in the next month. They sneakily upped the construction cost to over $150k more
There has been a sudden shift in cost of building since Covid and most haven't updated insurance policy to reflect new cost of rebuild. In that case an insurance company could reject a claim all together in the event of losing a house? That would probably mean that 85% of homeowners could have their claim denied if they lost a house for some reason!cost of replacing your home increases even through the actual cost of the physical home depreciates. If its covered for less than what it costs to replace when you make a claim (for full rebuild, lik ein the event of a fully burned down home), you don't get the lesser amount, you're considered underinsured and are likely to have the claim declined
You need to have a look at what $/m2 new construction is, add a bit for demolishing the old house if it was burned down for example and work on those numbers rather than what you think it is worth or even what it was worth last year. Our insurance renewals are due and I did some ringing around. One company, a biggie, wanted to match the premium by reducing the value of the contents and house replacement costs. Yeah sounds good. Pricks.My AAMI renewal is up in the next month. They sneakily upped the construction cost to over $150k more while simultaneously removing the specified items I had listed in my previous years policy. Looks like you can no longer do this manually online and you have to call them up. I suspect a fair few folks have been putting claims in and they are trying to reduce exposure to this. For me this is a deal breaker, If someone were to rob me, the bikes would be first cab off the rank. Easy to steal, easy to sell, hard to track. Given the price of bikes lately and my extensive collection can't chance it.
yes, they could. Hence why some, the ones that don't want to waste money fighting that exact argument, are increasing the replacement cost. This is an action in good faith, even if it doesn't feel that way. They're doing people a favor because most don't realise that their replacement claim is predicated on a replacement being able to be achieved for the insured amount. Many people are chasing the rock bottom premium cost and many will actively lie about replacement costs.There has been a sudden shift in cost of building since Covid and most haven't updated insurance policy to reflect new cost of rebuild. In that case an insurance company could reject a claim all together in the event of losing a house? That would probably mean that 85% of homeowners could have their claim denied if they lost a house for some reason!
Does it say that in their PDS's, if not I doubt it could be even challenged in court?cost of replacing your home increases even through the actual cost of the physical home depreciates. If its covered for less than what it costs to replace when you make a claim (for full rebuild, lik ein the event of a fully burned down home), you don't get the lesser amount, you're considered underinsured and are likely to have the claim declined
I think youll find a PDS isn't the end of a legal argument. It goes a long way to supporting an argument but intent and reasonable tests come into play too.Does it say that in their PDS's, if not I doubt it could be even challenged in court?
Surely can't be true. I was more undr the impression it was sort of like 'agreed value'. Happy to build a smaller house or chip in a bit to get the build done. I don't look at insurance as needing to completely bail me out, I just don't want to be left with a huge hole. Small gaps in policy are a decent trade off given the risk profile.If its covered for less than what it costs to replace when you make a claim (for full rebuild, lik ein the event of a fully burned down home), you don't get the lesser amount, you're considered underinsured and are likely to have the claim declined
Genuinely curious, what is the legal argument here? At face value I rekon a judge would laugh if an insurance company said they are not paying out because the replacement cost is higher than the value they agreed. I might be reading it wrong though, is the policy to replace and rebuild the home or just dump money back to the customer? Never really thought about that I just thought you get a wad of cash and you build with that.I think youll find a PDS isn't the end of a legal argument.
The way it will be worded is along the lines of that it is a condition of the policy that you are adequately insured for the replacement of xyz.Surely can't be true. I was more undr the impression it was sort of like 'agreed value'. Happy to build a smaller house or chip in a bit to get the build done. I don't look at insurance as needing to completely bail me out, I just don't want to be left with a huge hole. Small gaps in policy are a decent trade off given the risk profile.
Genuinely curious, what is the legal argument here? At face value I rekon a judge would laugh if an insurance company said they are not paying out because the replacement cost is higher than the value they agreed. I might be reading it wrong though, is the policy to replace and rebuild the home or just dump money back to the customer? Never really thought about that I just thought you get a wad of cash and you build with that.
Most people cant aford to fight an insurance company in court. You get the apeals/ombudsman process - which can take months. If its found in favour of the insurer, your next hurdle is getting it to court.At face value I rekon a judge would laugh
Here's *some* of the relevant wording from a youi PDS. There more in the various PDS' of insurers, but the rest of it is for you to investigate.Genuinely curious, what is the legal argument here?
Doesn't say anything about not insuring or paying out. Worst outcome by my reading of that is that insurance pays out what the insured value is and then you are shortchanged (as opposed to not paying anything at all). Insurance policies don't work like that and yeah you are right they might drag it through courts etc, but I'd be surprised if this would hold up.Here's *some* of the relevant wording from a youi PDS.
Yes that was the wordy thingy I was looking for!"contra proferentum" - basically against the party that seeks to "profit"
The principle you mention relates to ambiguous terms in a contract. Not explicit ones.There is a well established common law (eg. Aust and the Poms) legal principle that terms in an agreement (like what appear in the PDS) will be construed "contra proferentum" - basically against the party that seeks to "profit". What this means is that while an insurance company will be able to use under insurance as a limit on their liability they will not be able to use it as a way to avoid paying out at all.
Not correct. Its not a run of the mill commercial agreement. Hence why insurance contract law is separate to that or regular contract law. They both have their own individual legislation.The bargain between the two parties is complete. The insured has nominated a "value" and based on that value the insurer has calculated the premium. This is just your common run of the mill commercial agreement.
Im not going to scour case law for you to prove a point, nor is there necessarily any published precedent. Shit doesn't always get to court to be tested. Insurers rejecting claims for all sorts of reasons is not news. nor is it uncommon. I would hazard an educated guess that any insurer that doesn't have an explicit under-insurance or averaging clause will likely have one that requires your property to be insured for the full value as a condition of the policy (there will be reasonable internal buffers). Failing to meet the conditions of the policy is grounds for a claim rejection any day of the week. Its that simple.@Squidfayce You'll really need to back up your assertions here with some specific Australian legal precedent. Case law or it didn't happen.
Because you know it's BS, the insurance company wouldn't even stand a chance in court. I've dealt with a lot of insurances and their lawyers over the years and the first thing they say is check the PDS on page blah, blah and clause blah, blah. They're more concerned when people fraudulently try to claim something or try to claim something they don't insure on the policy.Im not going to scour case law for you to prove a point, nor is there necessarily any published precedent. Shit doesn't always get to court to be tested. Insurers rejecting claims for all sorts of reasons is not news. nor is it uncommon. I would hazard an educated guess that any insurer that doesn't have an explicit under-insurance or averaging clause will likely have one that requires your property to be insured for the full value as a condition of the policy (there will be reasonable internal buffers). Failing to meet the conditions of the policy is grounds for a claim rejection any day of the week. Its that simple.
Worth noting GIO and AAMI have explicit averaging clauses in their PDS.
.
Ok bud. Logic has been explained. Condition of policy. Don't meet conditions, grounds for claim rejection. Not difficult to understand. Why do you think there are conditions and why do you think attention is drawn to them? For fun?Because you know it's BS, the insurance company wouldn't even stand a chance in court. I've dealt with a lot of insurances and their lawyers over the years and the first thing they say is check the PDS on page blah, blah and clause blah, blah. They're more concerned when people fraudulently try to claim something or try to claim something they don't insure on the policy.
I've never in my entire life heard of any one being denied a claim from being under insured, usually the insurance companies try everything else possible to get out of a claim payout, but never heard that excuse.