No it doesent because his insurance is only third party so only covers me I think
I wouldn’t care whether his insurance covers his vehicle or not, only whether he has at least 3rd party property coverage to cover the innocent party so they aren’t out of pocket…
In one case I had, an idiot ran into the back of me because I needed to stop for the car in front of me which was turning into a driveway. I saw in my rear vision mirror that the idiot was texting but I also had oncoming cars so had nowhere to go. I could only sit and relaxed and wait for the hit… seemed like minutes but was just seconds… yes the guy in front was a little slow at turning but the crash was because of the idiot behind me…
The idiot was apologetic and provided his details but it later turned out he didn’t have insurance for his one year old car… and then wouldn’t return my calls to provide his policy number. So I ended up claiming through my insurance company but had some annoyance around excess and later headaches around car hire car costs.
But the repair was done really well…
It was just my insurer being a topical snotty insurance companies and playing their game of bluff… Excess was quickly sorted but the hire car costs they say can only be claimed from the 3rd party according to my insurer. But because he wasn’t answering calls, letters and such, and didn’t have insurance, my insurer said it wasn’t commercially worth taking him to court for $4k repair costs. So I highlighted that they aren't looking after my interests as I expected from my policy and if they want to throw away $4k of repair costs because it isn’t commercially viable to take him to court that’s their choice. But then I asked them what the break point was and they didn’t really want to answer. I suggested my hire car costs won’t make the total go over the threshold so they may as well add my hire car costs to their commercially “not viable to chase” loss. Combined with the wording in the policy where they require the right to take matters to court, and their choice to not do so on commercial grounds, and my real annoyance and mention of AFCA, they simply changed their tune and added my car hire to their loss…
Just shows that comprehensive insurance coverage is really important to protect you from uninsured at fault drivers out there. Iff I only had 3rd party policy, I‘d have been out of pocket the repair and hire car costs…
Still, I hate insurance companies and their bullshite behaviours, especially when they try and not follow their own policy wordings and have to be pulled up on such shitfuckery.
And I don’t have any sympathy for the plight of others who cause crashes and don’t have atleast 3rd party coverage. They are adults and made a commercial choice in the type of coverage or to insure not to insure… If the at fault party ends up having to take pubic transport, pun intended, so be it. That’ll teach them to buy a better policy
