Market value?

[FJRider]

Clearly you're new at this... insurance plays this game almost all the time. They probably have a policy to low ball everyone, knowing that a certain percentage will accept and move on, and the others will have to be offered more.

Policy ... that is where they start ... and legal action is usually required to get them to deviate from their policies.

Tell them the payout isn't market value (or provide proof of a similar bike, similar condition, it's value - better hope you're right) and you refuse to accept. You want your bike repaired instead.

Most insurance Companies will not repair ... if repair costs will be more than two thirds of insured value (some actually less than that). And the OP is obviously not insured ... or this thread would not be needed. As such the OP must realize some loss will be incurred in the process. (and we won't mention what the Excess would/could(was ??) have been for one his age)

Perhaps he might be wise to insure his next bike. Then this process might not need to be repeated ... again.

It's a game... they play difficult, you play difficult back then you settle in the middle somewhere.

A "game" where they make and change their rules to suit .. if it suits.


Seldom will anybody be stupid enough to pay NEW price for a second hand motorcycle. Regardless of age and kilometers traveled. It would be much better to buy a NEW bike instead.

All things considered ... $9000 would seem a reasonable resale price for a near new 300 Ninja.

[St_Gabriel]

May I suggest getting a written quote from the other parties insurance company, in your wifes/partners name (not your own so they cant put two and two together) and find out if they replace with a "like for like" if less than 12 months old. I know from personal experience that State insurance paid out the full replacement cost on a bike less than 2 months old but 1700 klms after an accident with the other party deemed "at fault". Covered for the first year of ownership for the full replacement cost.

You could always ask them to replace your bike with a fair market replacement of similar age and kilometres, what they pay for it is their problem. Also hope you can get them to pay for any extra cost in commuting whilst you are inconvenienced by their customers reckless actions.

Regardless, Good Luck

[swbarnett]

By this fucked up logic, if I were the first and original owner of my 1994 BMW and it was written off, the insurance company would have to write me a cheque of its original cost price, something like $80k.

If the accident happened within the period of ownership whereby the vehicle is still considered to be new the yes. The OP is not expecting to be paid the new price for a 10 year old vehicle.

[Mike.Gayner]

Perhaps he might be wise to insure his next bike. Then this process might not need to be repeated ... again.

Too bloody right - relying on someone else's policy to cover you is a risky mistake.

If the accident happened within the period of ownership whereby the vehicle is still considered to be new the yes.

The period of ownership whereby the vehicle is still considered new lasts from when you hand over the cheque until you turn the key the first time. After that it's a used bike.

[russd7]

(and we won't mention what the Excess would/could(was ??) have been for one his age)
.

point of order Mr Chairman, but if the incident in mention was deemed to be not his fault and it would seem that way from the facts he has given and the fact that the other persons insurer is offering payment then he would not have to pay his excess so therefor would not lose that part of his paymnt, that being said, he is not selling his bike, it has been taken from him and if the insurer can not find a bike of that age with that low number of kms on it then they should replace with a new bike, as for taking it to court, i don't know what the limit is for small claims but im sure 10 grand is above it so it would have to go before a judge and therefor incur legal fees above what he is claiming and could come out a whole lot worse off.
personally i think they should be replacing it with a new bike and yes, the helmet needs to be replaced and if they argue that point just tell em to go see acc

[FJRider]

point of order Mr Chairman, but if the incident in mention was deemed to be not his fault and it would seem that way from the facts he has given and the fact that the other persons insurer is offering payment then he would not have to pay his excess so therefor would not lose that part of his paymnt, that being said, he is not selling his bike, it has been taken from him and if the insurer can not find a bike of that age with that low number of kms on it then they should replace with a new bike, as for taking it to court, i don't know what the limit is for small claims but im sure 10 grand is above it so it would have to go before a judge and therefor incur legal fees above what he is claiming and could come out a whole lot worse off.
personally i think they should be replacing it with a new bike and yes, the helmet needs to be replaced and if they argue that point just tell em to go see acc

Had he taken insurance ... he would have been fully covered as according to the conditions of his policy.

It seems he didn't. He took the gamble. Not being at fault in the accident ... is by no means a guarantee he can/will be paid any amount in that event. He's dam lucky any blame is being acknowledged by the other party. In many cases ... this simply doesn't happen and the rider ends up with a pile of broken bits with a long drawn out court case as a result ... and even with a win ... they still lose.

The other parties insurer has made an offer. In many cases .. this is not a start of negotiation ... just an offer that may/can be withdrawn. Refuse it ... and the old "See you in Court" may be given ...

$9000 ... will get you a older but low mileage bike ... that's better than a 300 ninja. And WITH insurance ...

The OP's contents insurance should cover his riding gear but I doubt if he has that either ...

Personally .. I think the offer is reasonable and a lot better than zilch.

[breakaway]

Even 9k for OP's bike would be a stretch I reckon. Take it and run.

This whole discussion is kind of ridiculous. I can see his point but if the MARKET VALUE for the bike I'd say is well under 9k. The second he rolled it off the showroom its price dropped to about 8k.

A mate was involved in a not at fault accident vs car, after a lengthy battle back and forth the other party rightly accepted blame. Uninsured. Eventually, their insurance made an offer of $4k on a bike worth at least 9. Didn't accept the offer and told them he'd see them in SCC. After a little umming and ahhing they came back with an offer of 8k which was 2k more than he paid for it (private sale). Oh, and this was in addition to the motorcycle helmet, jacket and gloves which they compensated him in full for.

A lot of the time they're trying it on to see if you'll fold like a bitch or stand up for what's right.

But in this instance I'd say 9k is fair for OP's machine.

[Woodman]

It wasn't your fault therefore you should be put in exactly the same position you were in prior to the accident. If not, then take then threaten the other party with legal proceedings for the outstanding amount and then see what their insurance company does.

[ldcroberts]

what it boils down to, is 9k fair for a brand new bike I spent $10,500 on (purchase, ORC, 1st service).

I understand that if I was forced to sell due to whatever circumstances then it's likely 9k is all I would get for it on the market. But that example is a "buyers" market due to forced selling, hence "unfair" - not a "fair" market.

The law (and this is an international law) states that for damage compensation the fair value is the "highest price" a "willing" buyer who knows "everything" about the bike would agree with a "willing" seller. I can't see too many people "willing" to sell their brand new bike for 9k - it's only those who are forced into it. So a valuer should be making an allowance based on what the sellers would expect. And if a buyer knew exactly how it had been ridden (carefully) plus serviced, then they would pay more than 9k to get $10,500 worth of value if they were happy it had been well looked after etc, and that is what the value is supposed to be based on to be fair (under international law).

I'd be happy with $10,000 cold, used the $500 on the road etc, fair enough, but losing $1500 in 4 months is a heck of a lot if I buy another bike and it happens again every 4 months. No reasonable person would buy a bike and sell it after 4 months with that kind of loss.

They are using "unfair market value" instead of "fair market value"

[Mike.Gayner]

what it boils down to, is 9k fair for a brand new bike I spent $10,500 on (purchase, ORC, 1st service).

I understand that if I was forced to sell due to whatever circumstances then it's likely 9k is all I would get for it on the market. But that example is a "buyers" market due to forced selling, hence "unfair" - not a "fair" market.

There's a key point you're not understanding. Market value isn't about what you would sell your bike for to a willing buyer. It's what a hypothetical (and reasonable) willing buyer and willing seller would agree on. The courts and insurance companies don't give two shits what you would sell your bike for - that honestly has absolutely nothing to do with market value. EVERYONE THINKS THEIR VEHICLE IS WORTH MORE.

$9k is a solid offer for a second hand 300 and you should take it. Use the money to buy a grown ups bike, and buy it used so you don't get hit with the big depreciation bill.

[swbarnett]

The period of ownership whereby the vehicle is still considered new lasts from when you hand over the cheque until you turn the key the first time. After that it's a used bike.

For reselling purposes, yes. As far as insurance replacement value is concerned it lasts longer than that - anything up to 12 months IIRC. It will be in the policy wording. Maybe if the OP got hold of the policy wording of the insured party that could be used as leverage?

[Mike.Gayner]

For reselling purposes, yes. As far as insurance replacement value is concerned it lasts longer than that - anything up to 12 months IIRC. It will be in the policy wording. Maybe if the OP got hold of the policy wording of the insured party that could be used as leverage?

OP doesnt have any policy agreement with the insurance company. If OP were smart enough to insure his own bike we wouldnt be having this discussion, because in all likelihood his bike would be covered as if new. The other party's insurance co need only make OP whole again, which means replacing the bike if practical, or paying market value. Market value on a used bike is not the same as market value on a new bike. That anyone would argue otherwise is hilarious.

[ldcroberts]

their policy wording actually states they will replace with brand new if less than 12 months old. This is what they give the guy that hit me - he gets a replacement car. As the victim I'm not their client so it instead falls back on international law where they pay actual value (up to $2million) of damages on behalf of their client for whatever damage he causes.

As to the people that state it's not what I would be willing to sell for and everyone knows bikes lose value - that's not true - show me an average person with a new bike that "willingly" sells for a big loss (i.e. no pressure to sell) and I'll take your point, if you can't show me that you have to concede my point. It doesn't lose value to the owner, it's only when forced to sell that you can't get a price you quite want for it so you lose money.

You can argue all you like that when forced to sell you can accept that 9k is fair as in all you'll get, but thats a different scenario. If you imagine a market where people willingly sell near new bikes to buyers who will meet their expectation then what is the price then? higher I'm sure, and that's what the damages are supposed to be based on. The way they are currently basing it on imagined forced sales is a distortion that favours the insurance companies - just like my example where you are forced to sell a beer you started drinking on the 2nd hand market - the value is arbitrarily less rather than pro-rata based on fair usage.

[ldcroberts]

OP doesnt have any policy agreement with the insurance company. If OP were smart enough to insure his own bike we wouldnt be having this discussion, because in all likelihood his bike would be covered as if new. The other party's insurance co need only make OP whole again, which means replacing the bike if practical, or paying market value. Market value on a used bike is not the same as market value on a new bike. That anyone would argue otherwise is hilarious.

you shouldn't need insurance to cover damage somebody else causes.

obviously to almost anyone they would rather be the first owner on a bike than have a hand-me-down-driven-who-knows-how, and that's what I was prior to the accident, and now they are trying to say I should be happy to go and buy a 2nd hand bike same km's as mine and "believe" it to be perfectly fair and exactly the same - which to top off the insult such a bike doesn't exist and nobody really knows what it would be worth they can only guess.

[swbarnett]

The other party's insurance co need only make OP whole again,

Exactly. They have at least a moral obligation to replace the bike with like or better or enable the OP to do the same. If the insurance company can find one bike of this model, age and mileage for sale then I'd say 9k was fair. The fact of the matter is that 9k will not enable the OP to replace the bike with like or better.

Market value on a used bike is not the same as market value on a new bike.

Sale value, no. Insurance value, yes. To argue market value on something that is essentially irreplaceable is farcical. The nearest, like or better, replacement is a new bike and that's what the OP should be entitled to. Even though you may be right in this case - the legal position may well be quite different.


You are also right that this is a perfect example as to why going uninsured is not a good idea. And also why the thought of compulsory 3rd party is a joke.