In knock for knock agreements between reciprocating insurance companies, each insurer meets the cost of their insured and no claim is made against the other insurance company even if their insured was the cause.
As to what the insurer then does or does not do with their respective insured is a matter for them.
Craig1 said
04:24 PM Feb 9, 2023
Dogbox, I did drive trucks for a while. My point was, that IF there were meth head drivers, they would be making headlines frequently.
My daughter works for a freight co. and their drivers do get tested, both locals and interstate.
dogbox said
05:56 PM Feb 9, 2023
Craig1 wrote:
Dogbox, I did drive trucks for a while. My point was, that IF there were meth head drivers, they would be making headlines frequently.
My daughter works for a freight co. and their drivers do get tested, both locals and interstate.
not only do most get tested (randomly without notice) when in depot, it is not uncommon to be tested when out on the road.
a positive test in depot could result dismissal or a rehab course depending on who you work for, a positive test roadside results in cimminal charges.
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 9th of February 2023 06:00:59 PM
Ubique 68 said
06:06 PM Feb 9, 2023
Well, that certainly cleared a lot of dirty water by the looks. How's the weather where you are?
Mein said
06:18 PM Feb 9, 2023
In knock for knock agreements between reciprocating insurance companies, each insurer meets the cost of their insured and no claim is made against the other insurance company even if their insured was the cause. As to what the insurer then does or does not do with their respective insured is a matter for them.
Following the decision handed down in Hobbs v. Marlowe, subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the insurer of the party deemed to be most at fault reimburses the excess paid by the other insured party. Reinstatement of the no claim rating of the (deemed) not-at-fault insured party is, however, a matter for his/her insurer.
DMaxer said
07:08 PM Feb 9, 2023
That's fabulous stuff Mein, nothing like a bit of common law to round off the discussion. .
Insurance was not a field in which I held any great expertise but the case you quoted is a case out of the United Kingdom from the House of Lords I think. Most of the insurance in Australia is regulated under our own statute law, not common law, and if I remember correctly it is covered by the Insurance Act and I think APRA is the regulatory body.
I know when I did some work for the Government and drove one of their cars I was informed that the Government held a "knock for knock" with just about all of the insurance companies. I remember the old Commonwealth cars that had a Z on their number plates too. They carried their own third party insurance as well.
Mein said
09:01 PM Feb 9, 2023
Most of the insurance in Australia is regulated under our own statute law, not common law, and if I remember correctly it is covered by the Insurance Act and I think APRA is the regulatory body.
Comments such as above cause me to suspect that you're not really a lawyer.
Any and every insurance claims dispute that is not covered by statute, or the insurance contract, is determined according to common law principles.
The Insurance Contracts Act 1984, which doesn't reference the knock for knock agreement.
APRA is a financial regulator that deals with corporate governance.
-- Edited by Mein on Thursday 9th of February 2023 09:02:36 PM
DMaxer said
07:31 AM Feb 10, 2023
I could not care less what you suspect Mein. I think you are just looking for an argument. Insurance claims are covered by both contract and tort law. some under statute and some under the common law. APRA regulates banks, credit unions, insurance companies, life insurance, health funds, superannuation the lot.
As you seem obsessed with knock for knock agreements and whether they effect premiums or no claim bonuses, that is a term or condition of your policy, which is contract law. As to whom may be liable, that is a question of negligence, which is tort law.
Quoting English cases is nonsense. The English common law is usually applied when deciding Australian cases as persuasive but not always binding, especially if there is an Australian case of a higher jurisdiction which has decided an issue. If there is a relevant statute covering an issue there is no need to revert to common law.
Why do I think you are someone who was previously booted off this forum?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 10th of February 2023 08:57:37 AM
Xyz said
10:18 AM Feb 10, 2023
Gee, I think there is a lot of "my di.k is bigger than your di.k" going on here. Some people just don't know when to leave off, in my opinion anyway!!
Ian
Nevd said
11:06 AM Feb 10, 2023
Back to the subject of radio chatter, some of the truckie's chats can be interesting. Going across the Nularbor one year two long distance drivers having a chat for about 90 minutes. They told us everything about their families, what they thought about their bosses and co-workers, sex life, holidays and heaps of other stuff without any fear of who might be listening in.
86GTS said
11:29 AM Feb 10, 2023
We rarely turn on our UHF these days too much rubbish talk & not much else.
The last time we turned it on a truckie was talking to another truckie about when he was driving down a beach in his 4x4 on Fraser Island.
He spotted two chick's nude sunbathing so he pulled up near them for a quick flog.
Mindless crap.
hufnpuf said
12:27 PM Feb 10, 2023
Nevd wrote:
without any fear of who might be listening in.
Some people just don't care. I went for lunch the other day and these people at the next table were having a discussion about their family issues, no concern that I could hear every word if I was interested in eavesdropping. Perhaps with UHF people feel that they are out in the country and there's "nobody about" to overhear. Of course, anyone with a radio can hear.
Mike Harding said
12:38 PM Feb 10, 2023
If you spend a lot of time on radio (as do i) you become very comfortable and familiar with it and it's easy to forget you are, in my case, literally broadcasting to the world however, unlike the internet, radio has a major saving grace... your inadvertent confidences and sometimes foolishness are not archived for all time for any and all to view.
86GTS said
07:41 PM Feb 10, 2023
hufnpuf wrote:
Nevd wrote:
without any fear of who might be listening in.
Some people just don't care. I went for lunch the other day and these people at the next table were having a discussion about their family issues, no concern that I could hear every word if I was interested in eavesdropping. Perhaps with UHF people feel that they are out in the country and there's "nobody about" to overhear. Of course, anyone with a radio can hear.
Exactly like the large group of grey nomads sitting around a happy hour campfire that we heard bragging about how many dunny rolls that they'd thieved from CP's.
Plus the hand soap containers that they'd siphoned off into their containers.
My daughter works for a freight co. and their drivers do get tested, both locals and interstate.
not only do most get tested (randomly without notice) when in depot, it is not uncommon to be tested when out on the road.
a positive test in depot could result dismissal or a rehab course depending on who you work for, a positive test roadside results in cimminal charges.
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 9th of February 2023 06:00:59 PM
In knock for knock agreements between reciprocating insurance companies, each insurer meets the cost of their insured and no claim is made against the other insurance company even if their insured was the cause. As to what the insurer then does or does not do with their respective insured is a matter for them.
Following the decision handed down in Hobbs v. Marlowe, subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the insurer of the party deemed to be most at fault reimburses the excess paid by the other insured party. Reinstatement of the no claim rating of the (deemed) not-at-fault insured party is, however, a matter for his/her insurer.
That's fabulous stuff Mein, nothing like a bit of common law to round off the discussion.
.
Insurance was not a field in which I held any great expertise but the case you quoted is a case out of the United Kingdom from the House of Lords I think. Most of the insurance in Australia is regulated under our own statute law, not common law, and if I remember correctly it is covered by the Insurance Act and I think APRA is the regulatory body.
I know when I did some work for the Government and drove one of their cars I was informed that the Government held a "knock for knock" with just about all of the insurance companies. I remember the old Commonwealth cars that had a Z on their number plates too. They carried their own third party insurance as well.
Most of the insurance in Australia is regulated under our own statute law, not common law, and if I remember correctly it is covered by the Insurance Act and I think APRA is the regulatory body.
Comments such as above cause me to suspect that you're not really a lawyer.
Any and every insurance claims dispute that is not covered by statute, or the insurance contract, is determined according to common law principles.
The Insurance Contracts Act 1984, which doesn't reference the knock for knock agreement.
APRA is a financial regulator that deals with corporate governance.
-- Edited by Mein on Thursday 9th of February 2023 09:02:36 PM
I could not care less what you suspect Mein. I think you are just looking for an argument. Insurance claims are covered by both contract and tort law. some under statute and some under the common law. APRA regulates banks, credit unions, insurance companies, life insurance, health funds, superannuation the lot.
As you seem obsessed with knock for knock agreements and whether they effect premiums or no claim bonuses, that is a term or condition of your policy, which is contract law. As to whom may be liable, that is a question of negligence, which is tort law.
Quoting English cases is nonsense. The English common law is usually applied when deciding Australian cases as persuasive but not always binding, especially if there is an Australian case of a higher jurisdiction which has decided an issue. If there is a relevant statute covering an issue there is no need to revert to common law.
Why do I think you are someone who was previously booted off this forum?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 10th of February 2023 08:57:37 AM
Gee, I think there is a lot of "my di.k is bigger than your di.k" going on here.
Some people just don't know when to leave off, in my opinion anyway!!
Ian
The last time we turned it on a truckie was talking to another truckie about when he was driving down a beach in his 4x4 on Fraser Island.
He spotted two chick's nude sunbathing so he pulled up near them for a quick flog.
Mindless crap.
Some people just don't care. I went for lunch the other day and these people at the next table were having a discussion about their family issues, no concern that I could hear every word if I was interested in eavesdropping. Perhaps with UHF people feel that they are out in the country and there's "nobody about" to overhear. Of course, anyone with a radio can hear.
If you spend a lot of time on radio (as do i) you become very comfortable and familiar with it and it's easy to forget you are, in my case, literally broadcasting to the world however, unlike the internet, radio has a major saving grace... your inadvertent confidences and sometimes foolishness are not archived for all time for any and all to view.
Exactly like the large group of grey nomads sitting around a happy hour campfire that we heard bragging about how many dunny rolls that they'd thieved from CP's.
Plus the hand soap containers that they'd siphoned off into their containers.
Old fogies behaving badly & loving it.