A ‘Claytons’ Insurance Policy
Many of you will remember the old advertisement which stated Claytons is the drink you have when you’re not having a drink.
It would appear that some of the motor vehicle hire insurance contracts are the insurance contract you think you have when you don’t have any at all.
This sort of thing certainly goes against the ‘Make Insurance Great Again’ Campaign I am working on
This statement is based on the following blog question:
I’ve considered writing to you many times however I’m conscious of how busy you are and the many requests for help and advice you must receive every day.
However I have a scenario which I feel is a complete injustice against the little guy and would greatly appreciate your thoughts. The brief version is as follows:
• An Employee (who we do not arrange any insurance policies for, who we’ll call Jo) of one of my business clients was involved in an accident in Nov 2016 with another driver who was in a Thrifty rental vehicle. The Thrifty driver failed to give way and hit Jo.
• Jo’s vehicle has suffered appx $10k damage
• The Thrifty driver paid an additional fee to reduce the excess under his rental agreement
• Jo has no insurance on his vehicle, so he directed his claim directly to Thrifty
• Thrifty advised Jo that due to the fact their rental driver was in breach of the terms of the rental agreement ie. he breached a road rule by failing to give way, that they will not accept Jo’s claim for damage to his vehicle and that he should peruse the third party directly !
• I drafted a brief email for Jo to onforward to Thrifty in reply however they still rejected his request to lodge a claim with their insurer or to compensate Jo for his loss
• Jo then sought help from Express Legal who apparently received a similar reply although jo is dubious as to hard they pushed the matter !
• Thrifty have an insurance policy in place which I imagine they will be claiming on for the damage to their vehicle, so what am I missing here, how can an innocent party be “hung out to dry” in this case ?
Any assistance / feedback would be welcome.
Many thanks & Regards [name and email withheld]
The first thing I did was to download the terms and conditions of Hire from Thrify Rental and I found the following clause:
“You must obey all relevant road rules. If you don’t, we may require you to pay the full cost of any damage.”
I find such a clause unconscionable when someone has paid an extra charge to obtain comprehensive motor insurance.
This is not something I can solve and therefore wrote the following reply:
I think the best thing to do is to take this to ASIC.
I do see in their terms and conditions that “You must obey all relevant road rules. If you don’t, we may require you to pay the full cost of any damage.”
Having said this, if you pay an extra for insurance you would expect it to be there if you need to claim off of it.
Even at $10 a day, and I suspect the extra is more than this, the annual premium is quite high and so valid claims should be met.
I really think ASIC is the best way as I say.