Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Thought this might be useful to those that have insurance with QBE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5: When You Are Not Insured

5.1 When You Are Not Insured For Theft or Damage To Your Bike

There is no insurance under Section 1 or clause 3.1

5.1.1 - for theft or damage when you ........leave your bike unattended and unlocked in a public place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mrmina wrote:Thought this might be useful to those that have insurance with QBE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5: When You Are Not Insured

5.1 When You Are Not Insured For Theft or Damage To Your Bike

There is no insurance under Section 1 or clause 3.1

5.1.1 - for theft or damage when you ........leave your bike unattended and unlocked in a public place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution?
lock the pharker!
end of problem

besides who wants to walk home..and then have a shitfight
with an insurance co

smitty

that wasn't the point.

What do u classify as unattended? 1meter away, 10 meters away, 1 meter way but u can see it through a window

what do u classify as locked? steering lock, disc lock, chained to a tree

mrmina wrote:smitty

that wasn't the point.

What do u classify as unattended? 1meter away, 10 meters away, 1 meter way but u can see it through a window

what do u classify as locked? steering lock, disc lock, chained to a tree

mina
re an insurance claim
you would never win the 'unattended' question...unless
you are sitting on it!


but 'locked'?
normal parlance says' the vehicle has a lock/locking system that means
it cant be started/steered/driven away'
so I reckon
you just have to have a lock (steering or disc or club or whatever)
thats does what locks do.... prevents the vehicle being stolen

mind you, nothing stops a professional

cheers

Pretty simple really. You walk away and don't even bother locking it then they won't pay. If you at least made an effort and locked it then they will come to the party. Locking the steering at the ignition should be enough to be considered locked, even if it won't actually stop a determined thief.


...I'd say all motor vehicle policies have a line like this in them.

I think there is some mention under the Aus. Road Rules with regards to a vehicle being unattended if you are over 3 metres away. The QLD government use the same rule in some towns/cities/areas to fine people for leaving their car unlocked and unattended.

aardvark wrote:I think there is some mention under the Aus. Road Rules with regards to a vehicle being unattended if you are over 3 metres away. The QLD government use the same rule in some towns/cities/areas to fine people for leaving their car unlocked and unattended.

its a $165 fine and a point here in Vic

idiots determine to lowest common denominator yet again eh smitty?

mike-s wrote:idiots determine to lowest common denominator yet again eh smitty?

yeah
I reckon its stupid..the law that is for trying to protect ppl from their own
stupidity

I reckon let market forces reign....you don't lock your car
the chances of its disappearing go up dramatically
and if it does..........STIFF!


cheers

who can be stuffed with the paper work.

Does "unattended" mean by the owner only, or could we leave someone else in charge of it. In which case, "at the time of the theft a thief was in attendance".
As for locking it. "I followed the manufacturers recommondation for locking my vehicle and since you (insert insurance co name) do not cover aftermarket accessories including alarms and locks, I did not want to risk their uninsured loss by leaving them on my bike".

Wankers. They also have clasues like:
a) aftermarket accessories that make the vehicle unregisterable will void any claim - which gives them an out clause if you have an exhaust
b) claims will not be denied if an accessory fitted does not *contribute* to a claim.

Any questions? Yes? WTF???

Smitty wrote:

mike-s wrote:idiots determine to lowest common denominator yet again eh smitty?

I reckon let market forces reign....you don't lock your car
the chances of its disappearing go up dramatically
and if it does..........STIFF!

If anything, it probably helps keep our insurance premiums down. And as for making laws for the lowest common denominator... err, nope. They make laws for people who are stupid with a hint of common sense. I've seen the lowest common denominator, and if they made laws for them, cars would be banned.

samhasa636 wrote:b) claims will not be denied if an accessory fitted does not *contribute* to a claim.

Any questions? Yes? WTF???

If you have tassles and they're too long and got caught up in your front wheel, locked it up and made you crash - no payout.

If you have tassles but locked up front using too much brake and they weren't anyway related to the crash - no problem

Steve_TLS wrote:

samhasa636 wrote:b) claims will not be denied if an accessory fitted does not *contribute* to a claim.

Any questions? Yes? WTF???

If you have tassles and they're too long and got caught up in your front wheel, locked it up and made you crash - no payout.

If you have tassles but locked up front using too much brake and they weren't anyway related to the crash - no problem

tassles??
mate ur not in the suzuki forum nemore...we leave tassles for harley,ducati riders & the like...

loved ur explaination on the matter tho...lol

aardvark wrote:..snip.. And as for making laws for the lowest common denominator... err, nope. They make laws for people who are stupid with a hint of common sense. I've seen the lowest common denominator, and if they made laws for them, cars would be banned.

cars?? banned??

I have my pedal car in the garage..maybe I should rent it to learners