topic Re: Good on you ACA in Community Spirit

Good on you ACA

newstart2380 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:23:04 GMT

Sometimes this programme does some wonderful things, a quadriplegic man's van was rear ended and NRMA refused to pay for the repairs or to fix his wheel chair but after today's show guess what NRMA have been shamed into paying 50000 for the repairs or replacement of the van and chair. Great news and a great win for a person with a disability.

Re: Good on you ACA

i-once-was-bump — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:47:53 GMT

Why did they refuse to pay out on the insurance?

I would have thought that if you are not at fault it would be a very simple claim, but then I don't have a car so know nothing about insurance.

(I thought I heard that someone rear ended his vehicle so to me that is a simple claim)

Re: Good on you ACA

lyndal1838 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:10:53 GMT

There has to be more to it than the NRMA refusing to pay a simple rear end claim. And was the wheelchair even covered by insurance?

Re: Good on you ACA

acacia_pycnantha — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:11:57 GMT

Isurance companies almost always try to wriggle out of paying on a claim.

Once, years ago i had a minor traffic accident and the other party's insurance company billed me for the excess charge of the other party.

I wrote back and told them that since the other party was going to be charged this excess fee and it would not be refunded to them then why would they also want to slug me with a charge for that excess?

They wrote back and dropped that charge off their bill to me.

Insurace companies. they'll try to get away with murder if you let them.

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:12:47 GMT

"We have reviewed Malcolm Cameron's claim and found that there was a human error in calculating his settlement. We have rectified this and have now offered $31,701 to replace his car, which takes into account the cost to modify a similar car for his needs. We are now waiting for Mr Cameron's acceptance of our offer.
We have also offered $18,288 to replace his motorised wheelchair, which was damaged in the accident and was omitted from the original offer of settlement.
Further to this we will also extend Mr Cameron's hire car provisions for a reasonable amount of time so he can replace his car.
We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused."

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8773828/insurance-dispute-leaves-quadriplegic-isolated

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:17:02 GMT

i've been with the NRMA for approx 20yrs....Have had to claim a couple of times, thankfully without any problems.

Re: Good on you ACA

freddie*rooster — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:19:59 GMT

Typical Insurance Company, refuse to pay until the media gets hold of the story.

Thumbs down to NRMA.

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:25:23 GMT

@freddie*rooster wrote:
Typical Insurance Company, refuse to pay until the media gets hold of the story.

Thumbs down to NRMA.

if you watch the story, i think the assessor determined it was a write-off and were going to pay the amount the van was insured for.. the owner insisted the van should be repaired instead.

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:26:23 GMT

so yes, there was more to the story.......

Re: Good on you ACA

moonlyte — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:40:05 GMT

I am sure ACA/TT bullies business and people, at times. It is easier to meet the demands of ACA/TT and let the matter disappear, than have ACA/TT point the finger, and keep the matter alive with followup stories over several nights.

What defense has anyone got against bad media coverage, rightly or wrongly?

Re: Good on you ACA

cherry*135 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:01:34 GMT

The assessor just wanted to write the van off and payout about $9000 only. The van had about $20 000 of modifications and then there was the damaged wheelchair also.

The paraplegic man didn't want $9000 only, which would get him a new van.. but without any modifications and no repairs/replacement of his damaged wheelchair. He wanted what he had before the accident.

The assessor didn't do a proper job.

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:07:14 GMT

@moonlightbooksandgifts wrote:
I am sure ACA/TT bullies business and people, at times. It is easier to meet the demands of ACA/TT and let the matter disappear, than have ACA/TT point the finger, and keep the matter alive with followup stories over several nights.

What defense has anyone got against bad media coverage, rightly or wrongly?

it could very well have been the case.....The details of the policy were not disclosed, that I could see....

Re: Good on you ACA

cherry*135 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:11:51 GMT

Doesn't this admit the assessor didn't handle the claim properly?

We have reviewed Malcolm Cameron's claim and found that there was a human error in calculating his settlement. We have rectified this and have now offered $31,701 to replace his car, which takes into account the cost to modify a similar car for his needs. We are now waiting for Mr Cameron's acceptance of our offer.
We have also offered $18,288 to replace his motorised wheelchair, which was damaged in the accident and was omitted from the original offer of settlement.

I doubt the NRMA would pay out $41 000 approx more than they were legally required to do, (above the $9000 they originally said they would pay), just because they were on ACA.

Re: Good on you ACA

cherry*135 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:15:54 GMT

As the driver who hit the van was at fault, the NRMA can claim the payout off that driver's insurer (if they have one) or if not, sue the driver.

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:26:06 GMT

Doesn't this admit the assessor didn't handle the claim properly?

if we were to consider moonlight's suggestion, then the NRMA's statement would be an acceptable explanation i guess...

Re: Good on you ACA

cherry*135 — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:34:20 GMT

I am sure some named and shamed on ACA pay up to keep their good name. However, in this man's case I think it was their (NRMA) error in the first place.

Did you watch the video clip. The disabled man's brother handled the claim for hime, while he was in hospital. He said the assessor just took a quick look at the outside of the van and even though the brother offered to open up the back and show him the modifications the assessor didn't want to know/look.

If the disabled man had contents insurance his wheelchair would be covered wouldn't it? Or do motorised wheelchairs come under car insurance?

Re: Good on you ACA

**meep** — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:41:47 GMT

I have no idea....I can only find references to motorised wheelchairs.

Re: Good on you ACA

green.fields — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:56:46 GMT

Not knowing specifically the details of the policy but if it was only insured for $9000-00 then that is what they would normally pay if it was written off, it in all probability should have been insured for an "agreed" value, as to the wheelchair, no idea but would have thought household policy to cover that. I think the insurance co is just trying to keep a good name in doing what they are doing, pity it takes a tv report to get them into action.

My dil's car just got written off, not her fault,we thought it could have been fixed. Her replacement car cost her more than she got from the insurance, that has to come out of her pocket.

Re: Good on you ACA

***super_nova*** — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:20 GMT

@am*3 wrote:

I doubt the NRMA would pay out $41 000 approx more than they were legally required to do, (above the $9000 they originally said they would pay), just because they were on ACA.

I do not doubt that. Bad publicity would cost them much more than that. Just imagine that every person who has a policy with them due for renewal would go looking for another company. Somebody had to take the blame, so it would be easy to say "human error", make the disabled person happy and come out as a wonderful caring company.

If the van was insured for $9 000 then that is all that he was eligible. Can cars be insured for a replacement value of a new vehicle? I mean can you have 10 years old car and insure it such a way that if it get written off you get a new one? Somehow I do not thing that is the way it works, and I am absolutely sure that to have equipment valued at tens of thousands of dollars covered you would have to have extra insurance. That is no way that expensive wheelchair would be covered just by the car insurance.

Re: Good on you ACA

*mrgrizz* — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:02:49 GMT

so it appears he has got something for nothing.

i might go insure my car for $2, how cheap would that premium be?

then if it gets written off demand a brand new car

i think this is a case of reverse discrimination, where someone has used their disability.