Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 19 Aug 2015, 08:50 AM Agree 0
A nationwide taxi association has reported a major Australian insurer to the ACCC over a practice the insurer says benefits consumers.
  • Johnny | 19 Aug 2015, 09:45 AM Agree 0
    The sooner these sharing activities warrant an underwriting question the better.

    Then it can be charged for if appropriate or excluded if undeclared.
  • Michael | 19 Aug 2015, 09:54 AM Agree 0
    If the "occasional" Uber use is not against IAG/NRMA's underwriting guidelines, then I dont see the problem - ATIA seem to be forgetting section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act, in that NRMA would be unlikely to succeed in denying a claim for "illegal use" unless it can establish that the act of being an uber driver directly contributed to the loss.
    Insurance policies are full of contradictory clauses like this, seems ATIA have never read their own PDS.
  • Robert Cooper | 19 Aug 2015, 10:47 AM Agree 0
    It is against Public Policy for an insurance policy to condone an illegal act and cover it for the policy holder unless vicariously. It is one of Berliner's criteria of Insurability.
    So unless Uber is a legal activity in Australia, then NRMA would be ethically in the wrong for allowing such coverage. Be interesting to see if they have a clause saying "where indemnifiable by law", in which case, they will pay such claims arising from the Uber work unless someone challenges them. Who would?
  • Intrigued | 19 Aug 2015, 12:00 PM Agree 0
    So will other IAG brands provide this cover ?? i.e. RACV, CGU, Lumley Special Vehicles, Coles ????
  • SB Broker | 20 Aug 2015, 10:17 AM Agree 0
    Uber is far better than Australia's taxi service and an undeniable trend around the world. The taxi association is just clutching at straws trying stem the bleeding Uber is causing which will inevitably take over an aging, dated taxi system. What the taxi association should do is focus their energy into improving their services to take us where we need to go, when we need to go there and let consumers make up our own minds which service we want to use.
  • Steve Clancy | 26 Aug 2015, 08:04 AM Agree 0
    UberX is a great model, and a modern take on what David Friedman described in his 1973 book as jitney transit. The taxi industry is a protected monopoly and is resisting Uber because of the disruption it is causing.

    Having said that, Robert Cooper is right, to indemnify acts that are illegal is against public policy. The law needs to change to reflect changing consumer preferences.
Post a reply