I was hit head-on in a crash I did not cause. The other driver was reckless . I did the right things: I held comprehensive insurance, lodged my claim, and cooperated fully.

Yet once the market value was determined, the insurance contract pushed the rest onto me. I had to pay the $650 excess to progress the claim and access a replacement car — why isn’t that reimbursed when I am not at fault? 

My insurer Vero insurance (a subsidiary of Suncorp Insurance) asserted a right over the rego/CTP salvage. And ironically I’m the one they salvaged it from - $65.94 for CTP and roughly three months of prepaid rego ($236.65). I have to now fork out the CTP and Rego for the new car a cost I have already incurred for a car that is deemed a total loss.  

I am obliged to finish paying the balance premium for the year (about $555.60) and also start a new premium on the replacement vehicle — why do I carry two premiums when I am not at fault?

I live in Port Hedland, so to get a replacement car I’ll likely pay around $2,000 in transport — why should a remote, not-at-fault driver bear that cost? These are the real consequential costs of getting back on the road — and they’re landing on the victim.

This could be any careful driver who follows the rules and pays their premiums. Under subrogation, an insurer steps into the customer’s shoes to recover from the at-fault side. In practice, the process secures the insurer’s position — but who is securing the not-at-fault customer’s full losses? The result is upside-down: the person who didn’t cause the crash carries the shortfall, the delays, and the hidden costs. 

On paper, insurance promises to “make you whole.” In reality, the contract focuses on market value, while the true cost of replacement is left with the victim.

Here are the numbers. I’ve already faced over $3,500 in direct losses (excess, rego/CTP deductions, remaining premium, likely transport) before stamp duty, new rego/CTP, hire-car fuel and a higher new premium.

More damaging is the invisible cost. I was 12 months from owning my car outright. If I was to start the same contract now means nearly outlaying another $55,000 over five more years. 

That is an extra $55,000 I should never have to pay. It’s not only cash today; it’s years of repayments and interest. I could have saved that money for a home deposit. And to top it off , it's a hit to credit and borrowing power.

If “make whole” means anything, it must mean returning a not-at-fault driver to their true pre-accident position — not just the market price of a wrecked car, what about the consequential costs and financial trajectory they were on.

Premiums keep rising, wages are flat, and families are stretched. Every day, another not-at-fault driver falls into this gap and ends up paying thousands for an accident they didn’t cause.

Reform must be simple: if you are not at fault, your insurer should cover the real costs of getting you back on the road — refunding your excess, crediting unused rego and CTP, covering reasonable transport to where you live, and stopping the double-premium trap. That’s what “make whole” should mean, putting you back in the pre-accident position. That’s why we need action now.

Sign this petition to insist that “make whole” finally means what it says, and to protect every not-at-fault driver from being punished for an accident they did not cause. 

If I had sold my car, I wouldn’t be expected to keep paying the remaining premium. I could sell without passing on the rego or CTP — that would be the new buyer’s responsibility. And I certainly wouldn’t have to pay an insurance excess on my own policy.

A fair approach would be to treat a not-at-fault accident the same way: all costs and salvage should be transferred and recovered from the at-fault driver’s insurer.

Under subrogation, our insurer steps in to deal with the other party, essentially representing us. Yet I’ve had no say in how “my” claim is settled, and my losses are only partly recognised. It shouldn’t stop at paying market value. All the consequential costs — excess, rego, premiums, transport, on-road costs — must also be recovered, otherwise what’s the difference between being a reckless driver or a responsible one?

Right now, the loophole punishes not-at-fault drivers. We’re forced into the market for a replacement car only because someone else was reckless. That’s why this reform matters. Please sign and share the petition.