Everything You Need to Know About the New Water Excess

Thank you to everyone who read and commented on our blog post last week regarding the changes to our water excess. 169 comments as well as various Facebook messages, forum posts and phone calls definitely kept me busy last week, but it meant that you all were engaging with it.

As I wrote in one forum post – I don’t go around with my head in the sand; I know what many people think about insurance companies.

I’ve always tried to keep a really transparent approach and listen to feedback – which is why I wanted to follow-up last week’s release with this second, FAQ style post to help dispel any myths and also put together all the great questions and comments we’ve had, clearly answered in one place.


When are you going to release the new wording?

Well – the truth is there is no new wording. We have not changed what we are covering for, that means the wording does not change. But, for those who really want to examine things with a fine tooth comb (and good on you for doing so!) you will now find the below words on your renewal or new business Certificate Of Insurance (COI).


Water Crossing Excess: 5% of the Total Sum Insured, with a minimum of $2,000This excess will apply where loss or damage arises from the vehicle being driven through any man-made or natural body of water.


What if my car gets water damaged in a storm or flood?

This excess ONLY applies to claims made as a result of damage incurred by driving through a man-made or natural body of water. Driving through it means you are making a premeditated decision to drive through that body of water to get to the other side. Water damage as a result of storms or floods are covered as per normal and not susceptible to this new excess structure.


What if I’m driving down the road and scome across  water over the road and cannot stop in time to avoid entering?

This is not a pre-meditated decision to drive into the water. A few people used a video share on social media recently that showed a driver who encountered flooding on a country road speed and failed to brake in time. Ultimately the rig had water ingress and hit a tree which luckily prevented him from floating away in the floodwater. This is an accident – there was no premeditated decision and as such the excess will not apply.


What if I have taken all of the precautions required to conduct a crossing? Do I have to pay the excess and if so, how unfair is that?

The answer to the question is yes. This is an excess that will be imposed whenever you damage your vehicle driving through water, where you made the decision to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes, despite your best laid plans, things don’t go the way you want them too. However, if you have any uncertainty on whether you can make it out the other side successfully, then perhaps as the driver you should consider whether you really need to make the crossing or not. Ultimately the decision to drive through water is just that, a decision.


What if there is a life and death situation and I have to go through the water?

The excess will apply if you damage your vehicle. Perhaps the better idea would be to use your EPIRB or Sat Phone to call for help. If the situation is so dire that you cannot take the responsible steps to check what you’re doing and make a measured decision, flooding your car and being stuck in water a foot above your sill line isn’t going to help with the emergency.


This is just one huge cash grab – Club 4X4 has changed.

As per the original article, there were 3 options presented to us to mediate this situation.

  1. Remove coverage for water crossing claims
  2. Lift premiums for everyone to cover the ones who claim
  3. Impose a larger excess for those who do claim. Option two was the cash grab! And we chose not to take it because we deemed it to be unfair. Ultimately the decision to go into a crossing is that of the driver. If you’re unsure, wait it out or don’t go through!


*insert random vanilla insurer name* wont charge me an excess that big – I’ll be going back to them!


Not at the moment they won’t, but you want to make sure they would cover such an in the first place. If they do, check how much they would cover you for – will they increase your sum insured to extend to your modifications and accessories the way we do? Remember, we are not reducing your coverage and we are choosing not to increase everyone’s premiums to cover this risk. All we are doing is increasing the excess for those claims that are based on a failed crossing of a body of water. You may never have one of these claims – ever!


Club 4X4 is penalising the poor with this excess

The point of the combination of flat and % is to ensure the excess provides a sliding scale coverage for the total risk on a policy. Remembering that it’s not uncommon for vehicles in our portfolio to be insured for 1 or 2 times their street value – ultimately to get that sort of cover there are going to be differences. With reference to penalising the poor, we don’t see it that way at all – if you cannot afford the excess then perhaps more consideration should be given to your actions. The difference could be that you’re totally on your own and get paid nothing for the damage.


What’s next? An excess for rolling your truck, or driving off-road!?!?

Nothing else is planned at the moment, but our commitment is to have a valuable product that offers a much higher grade of coverage than what is available in the rest of the market. In order to do this, we need to ensure that our products are viable and sustainable. If things change in the future, the commitment is to talk about it with the same openness and transparency that we have practised here.


These were the main questions – hopefully this has helped clear a few things up. Now you have the truth in writing, so you can share it with others.



Feel free to add your comments below!


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Comments 70

  1. Fair and reasonable answers thou how does this rule apply where your bogged on a beach below the high tide mark and the vehicle is damaged by the rising tide.

    1. Seems an ever increasing amount of drivers have forgotten about responsibility and accountability’
      If you do not check the depth and speed of flow and drive in this change in insurance cover is about you.
      On the beach driving same add inexperience of many drivers to the issue.

    2. in this situation why could I not drive my vehicle below the high tide mark on purpose just to claim the insurance, the same with any water crossing what proof do people have that it was not done on purpose?.

      1. Post

        Bruce, i cant seem to find Glenn’s post.

        I assume the question was what happens if you get bogged below the tide line and the tide comes in? If you drove through water and become bogged as the tide was coming up then you will be susceptible to the excess.



    1. Agreed Kris.
      In this post is says “Water Crossing Excess: 5% of the Total Sum Insured, with a minimum of $2,000”
      No reference to aggregating the two.
      Kalen – can you please confirm.

      1. Post


        you can take a copy of this post and use it if we ever do anything different or ask to talk to me!! 🙂

        Both are exactly the same in terms of execution!!

        Kalen Ziflian

  2. It all sounds OK to me but, don’t in the future keep adding other incident excesses etc. Otherwise it soon will not be ‘insurance’ anymore, but predetermined ‘risk mitigation ‘ for which people will think it’s become a money grab.
    I applaud Club 4x4s transparency on all of this, as other insurance companies simply dump it in your lap at renewal time, with no prior consultation.

    1. Post


      The decision to go with an insurer is always up to the individual. If the conditions in place now or into the future are too restrictive for the coverage that we provide, then for any consumer the decision will be to walk. We don’t take that lightly, but it is also a commercial reality of what we do.

      Cheers for your feedback


  3. Congratulations on a good initiative and bringing some “personal responsibility’ back to people. As you rightly say, it is all based on a personal descision made by the driver. Insurance is not a catch all for stupudity.

    Now if we could only get that across everything in this world because common sense is not that commin anymore and has gone in the same direction as personal accountability – out the door!

  4. Hi guys , as one of the unfortunates that had a claim due to a water crossing in north qld, even with precautions taken ,slipping into bank and battery hit the air box just at the same time as entering the crossing. three vehicles before me crossed without a problem, but I stopped with a stuffed engine. insurance is insurance and I found club 4×4 insurance more than adeqete in dealing with my claim . I for one realised that it was my decision to drive the crossings and even though I now pay a higher premium I do so gladly , as other insurance companys would not have paid out anything, in 40 years of driving with only one accident unfortunately it was a big one. As 4wdrivers I believe we know we take some risks on tracks . it is a great comfort that we have an insurance company that supports us . so be prepared and check & recheck before doing a crossing is now my motto. If a higher excess is the way to go then so be it , better than no cover at all , or trying to explain what happened to a “normal” insurance company. again lets support Club 4×4 the only insurance company that supports 4×4 drivers

    1. Post
    2. Mate, I think you aren’t telling us the full story. It clear to me that you didn’t prep or check anything and just diddley-bopped along and f***ed up. Heavy 4wd batteries don’t just move around especially if it was ‘secure’ when you conducted your pre start up checks that day. What gear and what speed were you travelling prior to entering the obstacle? I think this new cost is BS, everone with off road experience and or half a ‘schmick’ knows it about profit margins. Club 4×4 is a great company but it isn’t in business for sh*ts-and-giggles, community spirit or because they’re a good bunch of blokes. What about us that live and work in these places? Do we get a discount for providing evidence that we didn’t cross the water obstacle? I note earlier that someone mentioned a safety issue and the reply/advice was not to cross but use a satellite phone or other communication device to seek assistance…WTF drugs are some of you people on?

  5. Frankly, l cannot see what is wrong with the proposal put forward by the insurance company. This way the drivers that are full of bravado will have to pay the excess, there by lessening increases on premiums in the future for those of us that use a much greater degree of caution when we encounter difficulties whilst in the bush.
    We have all seen the pretend four wheel drivers out on bush tracks chewing up bog holes trying to get their car dirty, then making it impossible for anyone to get through comfortably with little risk, just to boast to their mates of their achievements. Real 4 x 4’ers do not use and abuse their cars or bush.

  6. I don’t like it, but when you’re insuring this segment I get you’ve gotta cater for the lowest common denominator. Shame some people ruin it for the rest of us.

  7. Sounds entirely fair and reasonable to me. Only seeking costs from those that take a risk rather thsn penalise everyone. It’s a winner!

  8. I recently took coverage with Club 4X4 insurance, while I am extremely careful in driving through water I will not risk such massive excesses in the event something goes badly. I will not be renewing my policy with you when it comes up for renewal in 10 months time.

  9. As a 4WD driver of many years I welcome the carefully thought out changes to the insurance policy. It is fair to all and I hope has the desired impact. It may even save a life one day. Water crossings can be treacherous. Think twice before crossing.

  10. I applaud the changes. It puts the onus and responsibility back on the driver to conduct a safe water crossing. So many Facebook videos show idiocy that I am pleased will be mitigated. I also understand the need for a sustainable product. Well done for being so honest.

  11. Thanks for taking the comments on board and providing considered responses. While I’m sure the majority (all?) of us don’t like the change, I for one appreciate the exchange of views and knowing clearly where I stand.

  12. Your explanation of the calculation of the excess is confusing. You are stating 2 different methods of calculation.

    1. As per COI “Water Crossing Excess: 5% of the Total Sum Insured, with a minimum of $2,000This excess will apply where loss or damage arises from the vehicle being driven through any man-made or natural body of water.”

    2. While in your discussions your state” From today onwards, all new business policies and all renewals generated will include this new excess. The excess will consist of a $2000 flat amount, with 5% of the total sum insured on top. So if you drive a vehicle that’s insured for $50,0000 and drown it – that will be a flat $2000 + 5% of $50,000 ($2500) – a total of $4500. This will be charged above and beyond any excesses that may already apply to the claim. These will be noted on your Certificate of Insurance and are specific to your policy.

    Please clarify as these are totally different calculations..As I believe the COI is in plain english, I go for this option anytime.

    Regards Peter Watson

    1. Exactly, they previously answered that they equate to the same amount but obviously they don’t plus you also have to pay the original excess on to of the $2000 and 5% so with the $50000 insured example and my excess which I think is $1600 I’d be paying out $6100

  13. Totally fair approach as well as end result. I do not want to pay for people who take greater risks knowing there is little consequence.

  14. good on club 4×4 about time stupidity has to take book of what they do I’ve been on a lot of tracks that have been ruined by them.

  15. I for one can see why this change is needed. I don’t see why I should have higher premiums because some one else has decided to push their luck due to inexperience or stupidity. I thank CLUB 4×4 for the honesty and would like to remind the naysayers that they will be hard pressed to find an insurer who will cover their 4×4 for the FULL amount of accessories they have fitted. My last insurer would only cover my Patrol for 10% of total cost of the car in accessories, that’s the bar work covered and nothing else. Think long and hard before you go running off having a hissy.

  16. Excesses only reduce insurance payouts significantly if (a) it dissuades people from risky behaviour or (b) there are a lot of small claims eliminated that are less or near to the excess. I struggle to believe (a) is going to be true here. And as for (b) that only works for the fixed component of the excess, not a percentage component like 5%, which at most could save the insurance company 5% of the payout. I’d be curious to know exactly how a percentage is supposed to be a reasonable tradeoff for the policy.

    1. Post
  17. I would like to know how many claims come from Cape York every year. Having done the trip last year, I realise the entire OTT is full of crossings. It almost feels like you are passively locking the gates to this beautiful area. May as well call it a Cape York tax. Not happy at all!!

  18. I believe you guys have got it right 100%. Its actually quite awesome to 1/ be able to interact directly with decisions by your insurer 2/ see that your insurer is making decisions based on the insured.
    All I can say is keep up the good work:)


    1. maybe a hillclimb tax to?thats just incase you misjudge the steepness and have an accident,what next? 4×4 tax?where your not allowed to go offroad?

  19. After seeing all the stupidity that happens at places like Inskip Point over the summer, happy to weed out the people who use insurance to mitigate themselves from smart decisions.

    I have had to fight it out with a big insurance company before when damaging a vehicle off-road but on a gazetted national park road. I welcome the responsibility back on the driver.

    Like any insurance, it is there to help cover you….not protect you.

  20. It seems many of us complain we live in a nanny state and with this in mind insurance should never be seen as a blanket cover for any stupid decisions we make. To expect someone else to bail us out regardless of the stupid decisions made by the driver/owner is difficult to understand. Maybe I should read the details of the cover we are granted through Club 4×4 in more detail as I was always of the opinion any mechanical damage caused directly by a premeditated decision of the driver would unlikely be covered under any vehicle insurance policy.
    But here we all are with a company prepared to cover the substantial risk some put their vehicles through in pursuing our outdoor hobby that carries more risk than the average vehicle driver would ever encounter or be covered for with their insurance.
    Please be grateful we have an insurance company prepared to back our sometimes risky passion at what I believe is a reasonable cost for the cover we receive.

    1. Post

      Thank you Peter –

      It’s easy to tar us with the same brush as everyone else. People are conditioned to feel the way they do about an insurance company, but some see through the financial impost and actually understand the return for the investment.

      Thanks for the kind words.


      1. I believe 5% is too low, it should be more like 10 or 15% (of the cost of repairs, not total sum insured) to really make the uneducated think twice about subjecting their pride and joy to dangerous hazards. There should also be other clauses to make the uneducated think twice about other dangerous 4×4 habits. Provided that the premiums go down for the more responsible drivers who assess all of the risks before doing anything dangerous or hazardous.
        It frustrates me every time I hear of another uneducated irresponsible driver getting fully paid out by insurance companies after writing off their vehicle from what I consider stupidity that us responsible drivers would never do. As we all know, the more claims paid out to irresponsible drivers, the more the premiums go up for the rest of us. There really needs to be a stupidity clause where stupidity is penalized and the rest of us responsible drivers get reduced premiums.

  21. I have no problem with this in fact I think it will make some think twice about a water crossing which can prevent loss of car and in extreme circumstances a life. I’m staying with club 4×4 still the best insurance for my bus and me

  22. From how I read this it sounds fair and those who need such cover know where they stand.
    I hope I never have to use it it but glad to know its there.

  23. Have been reading all about this, and think this is the best way around this problem.
    being a careful 4X4 driver when i come across a bog hole, i all ways check it out for depth and what type of bottom it has. while we all love to get our 4×4 dirty, you do have to be careful.

    it is about time people started using their common sense, which we all have , we just have to think about it and not go BULL AT A GATE. all people want to do these days is go as fast as possible and do not care about what may happen because they do not think.

  24. Hi Kalen

    Several people have asked the same question that has not been answered

    As stated above 5% of sum insures with minimum of $2000 is heaps better than 5% of sum insured plus $2000 as stated previously

    So does that mean if I have a $10000 vehicle the excess would be $2000

    And if my vehicle is insured for say $50000 I would have to pay $2500 excess?

  25. I remember stopping at a flooded creek crossing called Valentines Crossing near Kununurra. I had been across it many times but this day it was a “No way in hell” day. Then up came 4 lads in a Landcruiser who also stopped and got out for a look with a can of beer in each of their hands. Back in the car they went and into the crossing. Somehow they managed to scrabble across with the back of the cruiser floating and only the front wheels firmly on the bottom on the bottom. I was sure the current was going to carry them off the crossing and I was going to have to rescue them but they made it,,, barely. So what did they do next, they turned around and came right back doing the same thing. I filmed that one and they barely made it again. They were clearly the kind of idiots I would not want driving up my insurance costs so bravo Club 4×4 for recognising that the overly brave (or stupid) water crossers should not be penalising all of us. Most other insurance companies would just amortise these idiots costs across all of us.
    For those who do run into a problem at a water crossing who aren’t the above type you just have to remember that like it has been said, it was your decision to do it and if you made the wrong one it was still your choice and perhaps you missed something while making the choice. So think about what you missed and why. Sadly it is a more painful part of the never ending 4×4 learning curve.
    I’m a pilot but working in mining. Both jobs are obsessive about safety. You learn a lot about pre thinking and checklists in my kinds of work.
    Stop, think, observe and prepare. If you have a water crossing a checklist use it, if you don’t then perhaps you should rethink your whole approach to off road driving regarding yours and your passengers safety.

    Perhaps Club 4×4 could add a new header on their home page for “Checklists” so that they are easily available for those who want to offroad drive more safely, it would be a great customer service. Even better if you could offer a selection of small laminated checklist cards to cover various offroad situations that we could keep in our gloveboxes. I could make some for you but there are 4wheel drivers out there who are much more experienced than I am so you could probably source or make better ones than I could. Here is a link to a risk matrix. It is a hugely useful tool if used properly for just about anything http://herdingcats.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ca4d953ef0133f215132e970b-pi

  26. I am very happy with Club 4×4 and support this change. It is refreshing to see such transparency and logic applied to a decisions that will affect their customers.

    I know my 4wd is covered for what it is worth and if i ever have to claim i will not be at a loss.

  27. Hi, what about beach driving as I do this a lot and as I understand driving on the beach requires one to drive through the water that runs back to the ocean so by the looks of it that would be classes as driving through water and what about you get stuck on the beach and the tide comes in and does damage to your 4×4 is this covered because you did not drive through water it came to you.


  28. Seems fair to me. I’d rather this, than increased premiums. You have to draw a line somewhere. This will discourage unnecessary risk to what could become a common occurrence, and the excess is tied the insured value of your vehicle.

  29. Good on you for been transparent club 4×4 if anything this will add another consideration when picking if you should cross a body of water, as fun as it can be I’ve seen plenty of idiots doing the wrong thing and not checking basic info before getting wet.

  30. Hi Kalen

    I agree with the thrust of what you are doing, but I have some questions on how it might work out.

    From the COI:
    Water Crossing Excess: 5% of the Total Sum Insured, with a minimum of $2,000. This excess will apply where loss or damage arises from the vehicle being driven through any man-made or natural body of water.

    Say two vehicles suffer the same damage in a water crossing gone wrong and the cost to repair is the same – $10,000.

    One vehicle is insured for $40,000, the other for $80,000

    The excess for the first would be 5% of $40,000 = $2000, the minimum excess.

    The excess for the second would be 5% of $80,000 = $4000.

    So even though the cost of repair is the same, one pays twice the excess of the other, simply because the insured value is higher, with a commensurately higher premium. That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

    Or is the calculation based on the cost of repair, in which case both would have to pay an excess of $2000, which does seems fair? And if the cost of repair to the $80,000 vehicle was, say, $60,000, the excess would be $3000. Again fair.

    I think the COI as it is currently worded is clearly fair in the case of a write-off, but not so in the case of a repair – unless I have missed something, like perhaps the calculation is actually based on value of the loss or damage, in which case I don’t think that is clearly reflected by the words “5% of the Total Sum Insured”.


    1. Post

      Hi Frank,

      what you’ve called out above is correct. Whilst it may seem that the vehicle with the higher value getting the higher excess is unfair, the rationale behind it is the increasing exposure in the claim.

      But we have had a lot of people bring this repair vs write off issue up – so it may be something we need to think of a little more


      1. But don’t the owners of the more valuable vehicle pay a higher premium to address the increased exposure?

        I would argue that just because a vehicle is more expensive does not make it more prone to a water crossing mishap – in fact logic and human behaviour suggests it would be the opposite. The owner of a more expensive vehicle would likely be more reluctant to risk drowning it than an owner of a bush basher.

        True, the cost of repairing or writing off the more expensive vehicle will be higher. Hence the higher premium. I think that’s where exposure to risk in this matter should begin and end (leaving out other factors that you already account for such as driving, claims history, garaging, postcode etc)

        If I, as an owner of an $80k vehicle, have a water crossing mishap that costs $40k to fix and the owner of a cheaper truck has a $40k write-off I cannot see any fairness at all in my having to pay $4k excess and the other guy $2k. The cost to you is the same, $40k, so why not the same excess?

        I think what you’re doing is on the right track, making the driver responsible for his/her actions, but to make it fair in this particular circumstance the excess should be calculated as a percentage of the damage, not as a percentage of sum insured. Have the actuaries calculate a new percentage if you need to, to make it work. I see no need to give owners of a more expensive vehicle a double whammy


        1. Post
  31. One of the first things I was ever taught in off road driving is that your 4×4 isn’t a boat. Out on the tracks I see a lot of people taking unnecessary risks with their vehicles and doing things that I consider to be quite stupid. I’m glad that Club 4×4 hasn’t punished everyone with increased premiums and has been very clear on what the water excess is and why its been put in place.

    I’ll finish off with one last comment my Army driving instructor told me on my drivers course many moons ago… “remember stupid, this vehicle has to drive you home. “

  32. Policy is very fair and reasonable. It puts the onus on the (responsible) driver of the vehicle to think twice about crossing the river or creek bed. If the wrong decision is made then pay the price. The decision to cross or not to cross lies solely with the driver of the vehicle. This is still the best 4 x 4 coverage available at a very fair and reasonable price. We will be staying with 4×4 for our Cruiser and Van insurance for years to come.

  33. It is about time people start taking ownership of their actions & stop trying to put the blame on somebody else or insurance companies for their wrong doing. I have done the Top End trip, Strezlekie Track, Birdsville Track including Cairns to Darwin via the Bourke Development Rd, Savannah Way & Stuart Hwy which included water crossings, steep hill climbs etc. I have always looked at the justification is it worth while to put myself & passengers in danger by acting in a manner unfit if something was to go wrong. There was numerous occasions I did not attempt different obstacles even though I knew the vehicle & I was capable to the task. Answer; “NOT WORTH THE RISK”. At the end of the day we need to get home safely people & vehicle. I was insured with another insurer but chose to move to Club 4X4 as majority of insurers will only cover you when you travel on gazetted roads with a premium cost near double that of Club 4X4. I repeat again “TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS”.

  34. You didn’t address my issue with why it is a percentage of the total insured value not the repair cost?
    You’ll end up being the insurer for flogged out fourbys!

  35. I think the change is a reasonable one, basically penalizing those who takes greater risk. However, in the context of fairness, it’s not and has the element of a cash grab no ifs or buts about it.

    If the introduction of this excess resulted in cheaper insurance for the rest of us, then it’s fair. However, if the premiums for all of us stay the same but others now have to pay more, then it is a cash grab. I have 2 policies with club 4×4 which had gone up significantly in price prior to the introduction of this excess. So isn’t this a case of cash grabbing on both ends? when questioned about the increases without any claim, Club 4×4 states that the premium increases were due increasing costs of claims, which sounded fair, but then following the premiums increases, this new excess is then introduced. So isn’t it a case of double dipping?

    The repeated answer from Club 4×4 as justification is that all accessories are covered whilst other insurers may not or will not and it may be so but aren’t we paying 2 to 3 times the premiums with Club 4×4 compared to other insurers? As an example, my premium with NRMA was $450/year on my standard Landcruiser. My current premium with Club 4×4 is over $1200 with the added accessories. I am fine with it but if Club 4×4 keeps on increasing the premiums or introducing new fees that reduces cover while increasing premiums, then it’s a double grab. If a new insurer enters the 4×4 market with similar cover, I’ll be gone in a jiffy!

  36. I can certainly see the need to do something to ensure those with a cowboy attitude because they are insured do so at the expense of others. It is a shame that those who do the right thing and suffer a genuine accident will be caught up. I have had one water ingress claim and it was due to a roadway collapsing as I drove through (40cm water, slow flowing)a cause way taking me and the car into the hole. From what you are saying, if that happened today, I would be stung for the excess?

    My other point to raise that you might need to address, is that I read the other day of a gent who called your company about this new excess and was told it was only if you did something wrong or stupid (eg too deep). He was advised that if the depth is under the manufacturers stated wading depth, then the excess wouldnt apply and that photos taken at the time could be used to substantiate this. From what I am reading above, this doesnt seem true.

  37. When i read the first email regarding this i thought I read in your example a vehicle insured for 50k would be subject to a base of $2000 plus 5% so another $2500 total $4500
    Then in today’s email it says

    Water Crossing Excess: 5% of the Total Sum Insured, with a minimum of $2,000This excess will apply where loss or damage arises from the vehicle being driven through any man-made or natural body of water.

    So I my vehicle is insured for 50k my water excess will be $2500. Correct or not

  38. To the people who talk about a Cape York Tax, for alot of the the crossings there are bypass tracks, secondly I WILL NOT CROSS ANY CROSSING that I suspect will drown my car, example Nohlans Brook how many have drowned their 4×4 there, why I’m a hero status, well if you want to play hero then pay the price, why should we pay for your lack of common sense.

  39. I agree with Steve’s comments above that we need more clarification

    I understand that the openness by Club 4×4 is better than what we would recieve from the car insurance industry as a whole, and I agree with their actions, however we need a final transcript and not a draft . I guess that will be in the near future
    Keep up the good work

  40. Post

    Guys – i can see where things have been a little unclear here so let me demonstrate:

    a 100k vehicle – $5000

    a 50k vehicle – $2500

    a 20k vehicle – $2000

    a 5k vehicle – $2000

    Sorry this has been unclear – apologies for the confusion


  41. Maybe certain tracks should not be covered for water crossings ie Old Telegraph Track.

    Where are the claims coming from that are causing the problems ?
    Can we get some more information as to the cause of the change in excess ?

    Are the claims coming from certain areas more than others ?

    Do this excess affect the towing claims ?

  42. Hi Kalen, I understood from the begging.If you cross a water body and get water ingress you pay an excess% of your vehicle clam. If you don’t think it’s safe to cross Don’t do it simple. Their is no 4 wheel drive that can be used as a submarine. However mistakes do happen normally it’s human error. I wouldn’t cross a water course if its to deep or likely to sink in mud, and be in a situation that makes my trip a disaster I would go around or go back even wait for it to drop. I feel if the water is up to the top of the Tyre it might be to deep and there wont be any room for error. If people wasn’t so complacent, thing it will be OK I have insurance, it will be covered, maybe club insurance wouldn’t have made this change. But I think this change makes scenes and very fair for everyone. I could have been changed to No water crossing are covered.
    I Just hope I never get in that situation.

    1. Post
  43. Well considered response to a growing problem. Well done for developing a response that mitigates the risk and applies the cost to the risk taker. I applaud both the approach and the transparency you have demonstrated.
    I love the “bush lawyers” – what is difficult to understand about ‘if you do it you get stung – end of story’.

  44. CLUB 4×4 next year you might want to change your name to CLUB TARMAC . My vehicle is about about market value $10500 for a mint 2002 pajero exceed and I have never had an accident on road or 4×4. only moved to your company a couple of months ago and you spring this on your customers.
    I have just contacted my old insurer shannons and guess what they will insure my pajero $10500 also cover me for off-road and water crossings including hydrolock etc for only $500 excess and they are cheaper than you . Only reason I changed to club2WD was the off-road recovery you offered . I contacted CLUB 2WD SORRY 4X4 to make sure you do not renew my insurance when due.
    At least I can still make safe as possible water crossings and not have to worry about you taking 32% value off my vehicle ?
    What a joke your company turned out to be .

  45. I really cannot see a problem with this. If any thing it should make the driver ask him/her self “Do i really need to cross this body of water”, oris there a better way to get to the other side”..?.
    Most times you dont have to cross it. Chicken tracks, as some people call them are usallly the most sensible way to go anyway.

    Im with you club 4X4..

  46. Pingback: Water Crossings - how to get them right - CLUB 4X4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *