Perhaps my terminology was wrong. But I`ve never heard of the word “Knock for knock.” Our “deductible” is essentially your “surplus.” I have tried to express this in other words that the operation can understand. A knock-for-knock agreement is not a regulatory requirement, but rather an understanding among insurers. This agreement was developed by the General Insurance Council, an interprofessional organization representing all non-life insurance companies. Thus, each insurer signs a toc-to-knock agreement with all other insurers, and they do so to prevent unnecessary litigation and delays from occurring by taking the case to court because of third-party policies. deShenke – there`s things going on in your mail. They described the toc award contract, but it only comes into play if there is a right to insurance – some insurers have an agreement not to follow each other if they have paid their customers on the basis that they all have to pay a similar amount. However, the driver or owner of the car does not benefit – if one driver is liable, the other can recover the uninsured repair costs according to the usual principles of the Negligence Act. But this was not really put into service, because the OP forced Apex to make a car intact. However, snack agreements have been criticized by insurers as unfair to the party not responsible for an accident. If, for reasons of administrative facilitation, the insurer pays to repair the damage suffered by its own insured instead of prosecuting the person responsible for the accident for all relevant costs, an effective claim is claimed against the insurance card of that policyholder. In this way, “toc-to-knock” agreements can lead policyholders to unexpectedly realize, when renewing their insurance, that they should expect higher premiums, regardless of the liability of an accident in which they participated.
I`m pretty sure NZ insurance works with a “no fault” or “knock for knock” system. At other stations, instead of arguing with each other over who was wrong, they only pay to repair their own insured vehicles and keep driving. I am sure it works less than going to court and paying for lawyers. We didn`t hear it after a month and we had to hunt Apex. Your insurance service acts with us in a rude and repugnant manner, sending us an invoice for $1311 and reporting that, since they have “Knock for Knock” insurance, they do not recover the cost of repairs to the other party, even if you are not guilty (i.e. both parties make their own repairs and the tenant is left out of pocket). The result is that as a party to the error, we had to cover the accident costs of $1311. Right from the start, the manager gave you false advice and confused the problem when they were talking about hitting to hit. You didn`t have insurance for the first 2000 dollars:- the surplus you mention. The total amount of damages was less than this, so Apex may never have involved its insurer. The fact that you were not responsible does not change your responsibilities to Apex. The reason they told you something else is inexplicable, but it`s not good customer service.
“Knock for knock” is a joint contractual agreement in the oil and gas industry.  The operator of an oil and gas property needs the help and know-how of many types of contractors, including drilling companies, drilling service providers, facility builders, equipment suppliers and caterers. As a general rule, the operator will use these services as part of a master service contract that defines the essential general conditions under which the work is performed. One of these conditions is the distribution of the risk of loss between people and property. In general, a knock-for-knock agreement means that any party working on an oil and gas site – the operator and any contractor – agrees to protect and compensate all other parties against violations of employees and agents of that party as well as against destruction or