How stolen does this look, or a bargain and get on it.

Tubbsy

Packin' a small bird
Staff member
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?

As to not wanting to scour case law? Fuck off lol. Better things to do and all

But we'll ignore the Contra Proferentum bullshit hey?

Anyway. There us an insurance thread if you want to continue there
Pull your head in with the condescending bullshit or you can have a holiday.
 

SummitFever

Eats Squid
The principle you mention relates to ambiguous terms in a contract. Not explicit ones.

When you have a contract term that states "it is a condition of the insurance that the sum insured represents the full or true value of the property", its not ambiguous. Its explicit. You could argue perhaps unfair terms. But I think you'd have a hard time defending insuring a property for 25% of its value and claiming that the terms were unfair when you're declined.

In any case, Contra Proferentum is a "last resort" principle when ambiguities are so extreme they cant be resolved through other normal measures courts usually use, such as determining the primary meaning of the words and the context n which they are used in the contract. Which you can see in the example I have above, is not hard to do because, after all, it is explicit.


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.

You could insure your shed on a bush block for 10M, and the insurer will calculate the premium and charge you for it because that's what you asked for, however the policy you enter into isn't for a payout of 10M, but for the insurance of the property's value up to a value of 10M. So if it costs the insurer 10k to replace the shed, that's all you're getting. Not 10M (your nominated value).

The opposite is more complicated. If you underinsure, at best you will have your claim averaged. i.e. you wont get the sum youve nominated or insured for but proportionally less comparative to the actual value of the property insured and the damage incured/claim made. This is specifically to stop people under insuring. Consider it a penalty for being a cheapskate. In some extreme cases, such as those where policies haven't been updated for a decade or are reduced after showing your bank the initial COC with the correct value, a successful claim could equate to cents on the dollar.

To add salt to the wound, if you have a mortgage on the property and you cant replace the property with the cents on the dollar you get, the interested party (the bank) will get the funds, not you, on the basis that you have no hope of restoring the assets value with the funds the insurance pays out. SO to prevent further loss to the interested party, the money goes to them to offset the liability you have to them. At this point you may be pursued by the bank for the shortfall in the value of the asset to reach an appropriate residual LVR. Net effect. you get zero and you are in debt by a factor of the shortfall.

Worst case, you can be denied where ethe conditions are explicit. Contra proferentum doesn't apply.


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.
.
You are well out of your depth. The words used suggest you know what you're talking about but the actual content falls way short. I try to post only on things I'm an expert on. I suggest you do the same.
 

Mr Crudley

Glock in your sock
JFC, I come looking for a mates stolen bike, and all I get is @Squidfayce being his usual know more than everyone on every single subject as usual. I’ve managed to avoid this tedium for months….that’ll learn me.
Ha, can't be too hard on yourself. Squidfarce free spaces are hard to find once you know everything about everything. It is only a matter of time.

When it gets to key details or proving a lost point then it all goes quiet while heading for the hills.

Conversations purely for entertainment purposes only.
 

ozzybmx

taking a shit with my boobs out
know more than everyone on every single subject as usual.
They were big shoes to fill...but he managed
Doesn't take much to fit in here.
Give a bit, take a bit.
Help a burner or two out.
Share some bike experiences.
Talk some shit and throw the hands up when you are wrong.

Being a copy and paste know all... that has never commented on an actual bike related thread. Looks like the whole place is on to you now skiddy.
 

Dales Cannon

lightbrain about 4pm
Staff member
Ken oath. Or back to bachelor living so I can decorate accordingly.
Getting new window coverings on a few windows/doors including the 2420x1810 window in my study. Guy doing the quote said do you want to match the other windows outside since this window and the lounge are the same and separated by the entrance. Nope this is my study. He looks at the lego crane and excavator on the desk, the shelves of books, models, measuring tools etc and then the tube amp next to the laptop and says well it is your room and you clearly do what you want... let me suggest... done.
 
Top