Skylarking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 10,073
- Reaction score
- 10,492
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 123
- Location
- Downunder
- Members Ride
- Commodore Motorsport Edition
Regardless of older or newer car, such clauses can still have teeth…I guess it depends how old the car is. For old stuff where that's a risk (e.g. rust), I can see it being a downer. For new stuff, its less of a problem.
You understeer on a narrow road and luckily miss all other cars but hit the hire hydrant. Your fault, so $1k excess. Then the sods say your damaged tyre was 90% worn so you have to fork out another $200 for your tyre contribution and along with that your brake caliper was damaged and the pad on that side was 90% worn so you have to contribute $200 for that. But this isn’t a biggie at an extra $400 of unexpected cost…
In the same vein, Tesla’s are notoriously expensive to repair and one light looking rear ending cost $20k USD. Now imagine you were driving a Tesla model 3 and didn’t see the pole as you quickly reversed so effectively rear ended yourself and damaging the battery in the process… will this mob say the battery at 2 years old with a 10 year life is thus 20% worn out and hand you 1/5th of the bill for the battery replacement? How much is 1/5th of a Tesla battery as that can be a little more unexpected and painful.
Really, I’m not a fan of such PDS’s but as long as one understands the PDS implications and makes the decision to carry such a risk for a cheaper premium (sometimes considerably cheaper) then all the strength to them
As a disclaimer, in the distant past, I’ve had 3rd party fire and theft on the clunker I had since it wasn’t worth the cost of comp insurance. So I fully understand the part self insurance aspect