Insurance premiums

[yachtie10]

I was at the meeting with Nicks myth last night and was disappointed in one comment in particular made by the minister

"That insurance premiums for motorcycles are about 3-4 times higher than for cars of the same value". This I find hard to believe as in my case my motorcycle is significantly cheaper to insure by value

I have made a google spreadsheet that we can all list this information
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkwerZ2oCakTdHd2RXQ1Vkk5dFZsMXUyV19vaEwwM Gc&hl=en

please add your details

If this is too hard then please post the details here and I will add them for you

please add fill all the fields if you can so the data is meaningful

Cheers:argh:

[FastBikeGear]

I was at the meeting with Nicks myth last night and was disappointed in one comment in particular made by the minister

"That insurance premiums for motorcycles are about 3-4 times higher than for cars of the same value". This I find hard to believe as in my case my motorcycle is significantly cheaper to insure by value

If this is too hard then please post the details here and I will add them for you



Yachtie10 unfortunately neither of my Linux browsers support google apps. Can you please add my costs to your spreadsheet. Please note my third party insurance from AMI does not include fire and theft.

My third party motorcycle insurance for both my 250 commuter (just sold) and my big sports bike is a flat rate of $27.36 per annum from AMI. For third party insurance they don't take the value of the bike, cc rating or my rider experience into consideration.

My third party insurance on my van is $226.07 from AMI.

My car insurance costs 826% more than my bike insurance!!

The logic behind this is that they either think I have less chance of hitting something and making a third party claim on my bike

or

that they think any claim made for third party damage when riding my motorbike will be much less than a third party damamge claim made when I drive my van.



The thing to note is that an insurance company which is what Nick Smith repeatedly insisted ACC is last night, charges me a premium that is calculated on the damage I can do to another party. By claiming that ACC is an insurance company the inference is that ACC is providing personal injury accident insurance.



If AMI used this same logic to provide full personal injury accident insurance, then a premium for such an insurance for a motorcyclist would again be many times less than a car driver's.

Why?

Because when a motorcylist is at fault in an accident with a car driver there is less chance of personal injury to the car driver. Therefore the motorcyclist's insurance company only has to pay out for damage to the motorcyclist.

When a car driver is at fault in an accident with a motorcyclist there is much more chance of personal injury to motorcylist. Therefore the motorcyclist's insurance company doesn't have to pay out anything from their own pocket as they subrogate (sue on the 1st parties behalf) to recover the costs of the injury to the motorcylist from either the motorist or the motorist insurance company.

If ACC is an Insurance company as Nick Smith says then our premiums (levies should be many times less than for a car driver) and we and insurance companies require the right to sue.

If Nick decides that ACC is a no-fault insurance company he is creating a new concept in insurance companies. It's a great idea. We would then have the World's only no-fault insurance company then a car drivers and motorcylists levies should be identical. (Nice thing about this scenario is theire is not need for any party to sue any other party.

Nick Smith is making a very strong case for a single flat rate ACC Insurance premium!

[p.dath]

That's going to be a difficult comparison to make.

For instance, my bike insurance includes cover for track days, replacement for some of my bike gear, and a basic death cover (for the funeral).

My car insurance only covers the car for on-road use.

[FastBikeGear]

That's going to be a difficult comparison to make.

For instance, my bike insurance includes cover for track days, replacement for some of my bike gear, and a basic death cover (for the funeral).

My car insurance only covers the car for on-road use.

P.dath why don't you get off your lazy arse and ring your insurance company and ask them for an over the phone quote for comparitive insurance?

[cowboyz]

not that I think it is true.. myself, my bike and car are within $20 per year of each other. (both around $400). I think the point of insurance is they have to weigh up the chances of it being stolen or falling over and breaking expensive fairings. Nothing to do with ACC. ACC is not an insurance company. How about we compare ACC levies to the export price of apples in the past 10 years?

[yachtie10]

not that I think it is true.. myself, my bike and car are within $20 per year of each other. (both around $400). I think the point of insurance is they have to weigh up the chances of it being stolen or falling over and breaking expensive fairings. Nothing to do with ACC. ACC is not an insurance company. How about we compare ACC levies to the export price of apples in the past 10 years?

I am trying to have evidence to refute the ministers claims that M/C are riskier in insurance terms.
I would love to have some figures from the US as its a purer system (no ACC)
but Some local figures is a start
Thanks for your figures

[yachtie10]

could whomever filled in row 3 check there car insured value as $20 seems incorrect

Cheers

[yachtie10]

bump bump bump

[FastBikeGear]

Yachtie10, can you add my figures from the second post to your spread sheet. I think you are exposing a very interesting angle.

[caseye]

Done Yachtie, and so far still no 3-4 times more expensive ANYWHERE.

[GOONR]

Done, The quotes that I had for my car are way more expensive than my bike!

[yachtie10]

Yachtie10, can you add my figures from the second post to your spread sheet. I think you are exposing a very interesting angle.

Done

yours is the most extreme due to your insurance being only third party (no fire and theft)
Seems that Mr smith may have made a mistake. Or maybe he is using misleading figures on purpose. Surely not:nono:

[caseye]

Stop calling us Shirley! of course he bloody well IS using misleading and unproveable figures, how else could he stay in front of us and lie with such conviction.
Nice work here Yachtie, the proof is in the pudding eat f;;;ing hmble pie nicks Myth! I hope it chokes you.

[Oscar]

I was at the meeting with Nicks myth last night and was disappointed in one comment in particular made by the minister

"That insurance premiums for motorcycles are about 3-4 times higher than for cars of the same value". This I find hard to believe as in my case my motorcycle is significantly cheaper to insure by value

I have made a google spreadsheet that we can all list this information
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkwerZ2oCakTdHd2RXQ1Vkk5dFZsMXUyV19vaEwwM Gc&hl=en

please add your details

If this is too hard then please post the details here and I will add them for you

please add fill all the fields if you can so the data is meaningful

Cheers:argh:

Smith's comment was stupid and trying to compare data is a waste of time.

Both premiums are frontloaded for third party insurance and based on a number of different factors including age, claims history and vehicle type.

The only thing a comparison will prove is that the premiums for lower cost vehicles are higher as a rate % - for example a $5,000 bike will carry most of the premium that a $15,000 does (not a third, as you would expect). This is because the average claim does not really relate to the sum insured.

[FastBikeGear]

Done

yours is the most extreme due to your insurance being only third party (no fire and theft)
Seems that Mr smith may have made a mistake. Or maybe he is using misleading figures on purpose. Surely not:nono:

I think when we all told him that this was bullshit, it was the only time that he looked suprised at the meeting.

He then said he had been told this by insurnace companies but I also saw him make a note and I bet the note was for him to check it out.

[hmmmnz]

my insurance on the bike is about double the price of my van which is valued the same, and my van is fully insured and the bike is only 3rd party,
my bike is also garaged and the van lives on the street

ncb is the same on both

[yachtie10]

Smith's comment was stupid and trying to compare data is a waste of time.

Both premiums are frontloaded for third party insurance and based on a number of different factors including age, claims history and vehicle type.

The only thing a comparison will prove is that the premiums for lower cost vehicles are higher as a rate % - for example a $5,000 bike will carry most of the premium that a $15,000 does (not a third, as you would expect). This is because the average claim does not really relate to the sum insured.

I think you are missing the point
I am looking for trend information to refute a statement im not comparing directly. (I agree it is not an apples with apples approach) I will do some work with insurance companies to look into this.
By using data from the same people I remove a lot of factors which would skew the data.

[yachtie10]

my insurance on the bike is about double the price of my van which is valued the same, and my van is fully insured and the bike is only 3rd party,
my bike is also garaged and the van lives on the street

ncb is the same on both

Thanks for that input

maybe the spreadsheet will give you some companies to call to check your not overpaying

[Oscar]

I think you are missing the point
I am looking for trend information to refute a statement im not comparing directly. (I agree it is not an apples with apples approach) I will do some work with insurance companies to look into this.
By using data from the same people I remove a lot of factors which would skew the data.

Why don't I just send you the premium rates?

[Bodir]

The problem is that Nick will have data from the likes of Tower and State, who insure motorcycles without knowing what they do and that is reflected in the premium. Motorcycle friendly insurances (I use John Baker) are significantly cheaper, as they allow not only for cc but model, year, power, cc, rider age etc. They use real numbers based on their experience. And they are not broke yet, so they cannot be that far off.

If Nick would have contacted a motorcycle insurance company he would have a different view on what is going on. However, it would not support his view. :brick:

[yachtie10]

Why don't I just send you the premium rates?

up to you
if that's what you want that's fine

[Ixion]

Mr oscar is an insurance broker (I think, summit to do with insurance anyway).

He means he can send you representative figures.

I'd suggest the easiest way would be to ask a couple of typical car insurer (say State and AA ) for a quote for a imaginary car worth $8000 (pick something off Trademe). Normal middle of the road car. Use your own actual details for age, experience etc.

Then get similar quotes from Swann , David Baker, Kiwibiker for a bike worth $8000. Typical middle of the road bike. Say a Hornet, Bandit maybe.

That will eliminate a lot of the apples vs apples issues.

[Hanne]

good idea ixion.

With the GN currently insured for all licenced riders, 3rd party at $4 a month, that has the potential to skew figures just SLiGHtly

PS but when asking don't forget to include weight. Good old Nick Smith has assured us that more weight = more dangerous so we better factor that in too

[ckai]

Well, I'll leave my figures out of this I think. My bike insurance IS about 3x more than my car pretty much. Maybe because the bike is a sports machine I'd say. But still I have a '05 Legacy ("high-theft" apparently - crap) and a 08 Daytona.

[FastBikeGear]

my insurance on the bike is about double the price of my van which is valued the same, and my van is fully insured and the bike is only 3rd party,
my bike is also garaged and the van lives on the street

ncb is the same on both

hmmmnz if you got just thrid party (no fire and theft) from AMI I think you will find you insurance will drop to under $30. Of course you may think your bike is going to catch on fire, be burnt in a house fire or stolen and need/want to pay the $560 for this.

[Oscar]

Mr oscar is an insurance broker (I think, summit to do with insurance anyway).



I'm a Commercial Underwriter now, and I can tell you that what Smith is saying is the usual propaganda with a small grain of truth. Dollar for dollar, bikes cost more to insure than cars, but the actual rate is dependent on too many individual factors to generalise.

[Bodir]

PS but when asking don't forget to include weight. Good old Nick Smith has assured us that more weight = more dangerous so we better factor that in too

The weight of the bike has nothing to do with the injury of the rider. Simple school physics should have taught this to Nick and he claims to be an engineer.

Let me explain:

First the exception to the statement. When dropping a bike on your foot while stationary, yes the higher the weight the more damage can be done. But this is not the point when talking about ACC. These are minor injuries compared.

Scenario one: Bike hits object. (front on collision)
Bike travels at the same speed as the rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with its speed. 100kph are always 100kph. On impact, the bike is decelerated from this speed due to resistance (friction, crumple zones, etc) or even stopped. The rider however, has yet not hit the same point of impact as he is sitting further back. This results in a speed differential. Biker faster than bike. The biker then leaves his position to "travel" without the bike until he hits something. By this time, the only weight that has an impact on the biker is his own. The weight of the bike has no part in the damage to the biker.

Scenario two: Biker comes of bike.
The same principal is used here. The biker is separated from the bike and his own weight determines the amount of damage he will suffer.

Scenario three: Object hits bike. (side on collision)
The bike is hit by an object. The weight of the bike does not come into the equation as the rider is hit independently of his bike, same as a pedestrian would be. The weight of the object and its speed determines the amount of injury.

Now to answer the question where does bike weight come into this equation:
In scenario one, the heavier the bike, the more damage to the object that was hit. Usually the car, wall etc. Not a case for ACC but insurance.
In scenario two, if the bike by chance is overtaken by the rider and later on crashes into the rider again. In this case the heavier the bike the more damage. Usually this is neglect-able as the amount of damage done by the surrounding objects have already had major impact on the rider prior to his bike hitting him. You need a lot of speed to get ahead of your bike.
In scenario three, if the object is another bike, it will do damage according to its weight, but to the other rider.

As I said this is simple physics and my post is not written in a scientific matter. If need be I can sit down and provide the formulas and theories behind it, but at this stage a rough description should do.

[Juzz976]

I ride a motorcycle so I have insurance - Health, Life, Income protection, Loan protection, House & Contents and Motorcycle.
can't afford car because its over $1,200 a year for $6000 car.
So if something happens to me, injury or death would I get anything from ACC.
I suspect not yet I still pay ACC Levies

[Hanne]

@ Bodir:

Exactly!

Well I really think you should send this to Nick Smith's office with an introduction about being at the meeting on Monday. Ask him for the figures and evidence to support his claim, and provide your very sound reasoning against it :P

[The Pastor]

my insurance us excatly the same, but i have 3rd party?

[yachtie10]

The weight of the bike has nothing to do with the injury of the rider. Simple school physics should have taught this to Nick and he claims to be an engineer.

Let me explain:

First the exception to the statement. When dropping a bike on your foot while stationary, yes the higher the weight the more damage can be done. But this is not the point when talking about ACC. These are minor injuries compared.

Scenario one: Bike hits object. (front on collision)
Bike travels at the same speed as the rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with its speed. 100kph are always 100kph. On impact, the bike is decelerated from this speed due to resistance (friction, crumple zones, etc) or even stopped. The rider however, has yet not hit the same point of impact as he is sitting further back. This results in a speed differential. Biker faster than bike. The biker then leaves his position to "travel" without the bike until he hits something. By this time, the only weight that has an impact on the biker is his own. The weight of the bike has no part in the damage to the biker.

Scenario two: Biker comes of bike.
The same principal is used here. The biker is separated from the bike and his own weight determines the amount of damage he will suffer.

Scenario three: Object hits bike. (side on collision)
The bike is hit by an object. The weight of the bike does not come into the equation as the rider is hit independently of his bike, same as a pedestrian would be. The weight of the object and its speed determines the amount of injury.

Now to answer the question where does bike weight come into this equation:
In scenario one, the heavier the bike, the more damage to the object that was hit. Usually the car, wall etc. Not a case for ACC but insurance.
In scenario two, if the bike by chance is overtaken by the rider and later on crashes into the rider again. In this case the heavier the bike the more damage. Usually this is neglect-able as the amount of damage done by the surrounding objects have already had major impact on the rider prior to his bike hitting him. You need a lot of speed to get ahead of your bike.
In scenario three, if the object is another bike, it will do damage according to its weight, but to the other rider.

As I said this is simple physics and my post is not written in a scientific matter. If need be I can sit down and provide the formulas and theories behind it, but at this stage a rough description should do.

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

[yachtie10]

First the exception to the statement. When dropping a bike on your foot while stationary, yes the higher the weight the more damage can be done. But this is not the point when talking about ACC. These are minor injuries compared.

Scenario one: Bike hits object. (front on collision)
Bike travels at the same speed as the rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with its speed. 100kph are always 100kph. On impact, the bike is decelerated from this speed due to resistance (friction, crumple zones, etc) or even stopped. The rider however, has yet not hit the same point of impact as he is sitting further back. This results in a speed differential. Biker faster than bike. The biker then leaves his position to "travel" without the bike until he hits something. By this time, the only weight that has an impact on the biker is his own. The weight of the bike has no part in the damage to the biker.

Scenario two: Biker comes of bike.
The same principal is used here. The biker is separated from the bike and his own weight determines the amount of damage he will suffer.

Scenario three: Object hits bike. (side on collision)
The bike is hit by an object. The weight of the bike does not come into the equation as the rider is hit independently of his bike, same as a pedestrian would be. The weight of the object and its speed determines the amount of injury.

Now to answer the question where does bike weight come into this equation:
In scenario one, the heavier the bike, the more damage to the object that was hit. Usually the car, wall etc. Not a case for ACC but insurance.
In scenario two, if the bike by chance is overtaken by the rider and later on crashes into the rider again. In this case the heavier the bike the more damage. Usually this is neglect-able as the amount of damage done by the surrounding objects have already had major impact on the rider prior to his bike hitting him. You need a lot of speed to get ahead of your bike.
In scenario three, if the object is another bike, it will do damage according to its weight, but to the other rider.

As I said this is simple physics and my post is not written in a scientific matter. If need be I can sit down and provide the formulas and theories behind it, but at this stage a rough description should do.

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

[yachtie10]

Mr oscar is an insurance broker (I think, summit to do with insurance anyway).

He means he can send you representative figures.

I'd suggest the easiest way would be to ask a couple of typical car insurer (say State and AA ) for a quote for a imaginary car worth $8000 (pick something off Trademe). Normal middle of the road car. Use your own actual details for age, experience etc.

Then get similar quotes from Swann , David Baker, Kiwibiker for a bike worth $8000. Typical middle of the road bike. Say a Hornet, Bandit maybe.

That will eliminate a lot of the apples vs apples issues.

Thanks and you are right (always my intention to get quotes)
but the speadsheet has some advantages in getting some broad figures from the real world
It is also showing that some people may need to look at who they insure their bike with

Just to be clear I spent a couple of years working in an actuarial department of an insurance company in my youth so I think I understand the basics of risk assesment. that being said different companies take quite different approaches to calculating the risk

[yachtie10]

I'm a Commercial Underwriter now, and I can tell you that what Smith is saying is the usual propaganda with a small grain of truth. Dollar for dollar, bikes cost more to insure than cars, but the actual rate is dependent on too many individual factors to generalise.

Thanks
I would love to have any information you could provide along those lines
I will be getting quotes directly but as most of the main insurance companies seem to have an aversion to motorcycle insurance (there staff have admitted this to me on the phone to explain their high premiums) The figures can be tainted easily

[yachtie10]

Well, I'll leave my figures out of this I think. My bike insurance IS about 3x more than my car pretty much. Maybe because the bike is a sports machine I'd say. But still I have a '05 Legacy ("high-theft" apparently - crap) and a 08 Daytona.

up to you
Im not trying to fudge the figures though
I dont know who you insure your bike with or what your history is but maybe talk to kiwibike as when i discussed with them that my bike had no expensive fairing and ABS they said it made no difference as they worked on the value insured

[ckai]

up to you
Im not trying to fudge the figures though
I dont know who you insure your bike with or what your history is but maybe talk to kiwibike as when i discussed with them that my bike had no expensive fairing and ABS they said it made no difference as they worked on the value insured

yeah i'm with kiwibike. no claims until last week, and from the speed they deal with things makes me glad i'm with them.

[yachtie10]

Bump bump bump

[FastBikeGear]

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

This link provided by 'Candor' may be of interest to you in your research on this topic. http://www.allianz.com.au/allianz/cict+sa.html

Premium calculator here http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Premiums%20Sched%20final%20aug09.pdf

[sinned]

When I was sold a life insurance policy - many moons / decades ago the insurance company rated three activities as risky. They were, motor sport, mountain climbing and flying. Interesting that driving a car and riding a motorcycle were not on the high risk list.

How times have changed.

[davebullet]

Why don't I just send you the premium rates?

Who do you work for? Can you send them to me too please? :laugh:

Dave - bloody good idea. I'll upload mine when I dig out my last renewal notices.

From what I recall, my $7,000 bike is only slightly more than my $3,000 car - supporting your inclination.

I personally think insurers under-insure bikes, when you consider the likelihood of a drop or knock over (fairing and /or radiator / tank etc.. damage), and that the cost of parts is usually considerably more than cars. eg. You can panel beat a fender or get a replacement from many wreckers, but a plastic fairing requires more specialist repair work, or OEM replacement.

I think insurers don't have the data to price bikes correctly, or use high volume risk classes (such as cars) to subsidise the minority risk classes (bikes).

[Owl]

but the speadsheet has some advantages in getting some broad figures from the real world
It is also showing that some people may need to look at who they insure their bike with

How do you figure that? The spreadsheet currently has no provision for excess, therefore very relevant data is incomplete!

[Grahameeboy]

I was at the meeting with Nicks myth last night and was disappointed in one comment in particular made by the minister

"That insurance premiums for motorcycles are about 3-4 times higher than for cars of the same value". This I find hard to believe as in my case my motorcycle is significantly cheaper to insure by value

I have made a google spreadsheet that we can all list this information
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkwerZ2oCakTdHd2RXQ1Vkk5dFZsMXUyV19vaEwwM Gc&hl=en

please add your details

If this is too hard then please post the details here and I will add them for you

please add fill all the fields if you can so the data is meaningful

Cheers:argh:

The value is not the only factor...bike parts are more expensive v cars and of course the risk of an accident is higher...a bike is more likely to be written off than a car

[Grahameeboy]

Who do you work for? Can you send them to me too please? :laugh:

Dave - bloody good idea. I'll upload mine when I dig out my last renewal notices.

From what I recall, my $7,000 bike is only slightly more than my $3,000 car - supporting your inclination.

I personally think insurers under-insure bikes, when you consider the likelihood of a drop or knock over (fairing and /or radiator / tank etc.. damage), and that the cost of parts is usually considerably more than cars. eg. You can panel beat a fender or get a replacement from many wreckers, but a plastic fairing requires more specialist repair work, or OEM replacement.

I think insurers don't have the data to price bikes correctly, or use high volume risk classes (such as cars) to subsidise the minority risk classes (bikes).

Actually Insurer's rely on the value from the insured...

[cowboyz]

Actually Insurer's rely on the value from the insured...

this is true before an accident. after an accident the insurance companies seem to know exactly what they think something is worth.

this is my big gripe with insurance companies.

If *I* decide that my 1998 ZX9r is worth 4 million dollars and arrange insurance and an insurance company *agree* to insure it for 4 million dollars and base my premium on that ammount then if I crash it then they should either fix it to the value of 4 million dollars or write it off and pay out the full ammount.

What annoys me is they go, well tell us how much your bike is worth.. Righto.. lets say 8k. then you crash and they go.. market value.. its only worth 4k. here you go.

I am really (not considering this is NZ) surprised that people put up with it.

[Grahameeboy]

this is true before an accident. after an accident the insurance companies seem to know exactly what they think something is worth.

this is my big gripe with insurance companies.

If *I* decide that my 1998 ZX9r is worth 4 million dollars and arrange insurance and an insurance company *agree* to insure it for 4 million dollars and base my premium on that ammount then if I crash it then they should either fix it to the value of 4 million dollars or write it off and pay out the full ammount.

What annoys me is they go, well tell us how much your bike is worth.. Righto.. lets say 8k. then you crash and they go.. market value.. its only worth 4k. here you go.

I am really (not considering this is NZ) surprised that people put up with it.

The problem is that an insurer has no idea what your bike is worth when you ring for a quote...condition, mileage etc all unknown...also what you think your bike is worth may not actually be it's market value...

You can have agreed value with say Classic Insurance which allows a 20% leeway...

[flyingcrocodile46]

this is true before an accident. after an accident the insurance companies seem to know exactly what they think something is worth.

this is my big gripe with insurance companies.

If *I* decide that my 1998 ZX9r is worth 4 million dollars and arrange insurance and an insurance company *agree* to insure it for 4 million dollars and base my premium on that ammount then if I crash it then they should either fix it to the value of 4 million dollars or write it off and pay out the full ammount.

What annoys me is they go, well tell us how much your bike is worth.. Righto.. lets say 8k. then you crash and they go.. market value.. its only worth 4k. here you go.

I am really (not considering this is NZ) surprised that people put up with it.

You can get proper agreed value cover with Swann but you may find you have to prove it's worth what you claim it is. A dealer valuation is sufficient

[cowboyz]

The problem is that an insurer has no idea what your bike is worth when you ring for a quote...condition, mileage etc all unknown...also what you think your bike is worth may not actually be it's market value...

You can have agreed value with say Classic Insurance which allows a 20% leeway...


You can get proper agreed value cover with Swann but you may find you have to prove it's worth what you claim it is. A dealer valuation is sufficient

both missing the point. The bikes value should be imaterial (sp?)

your have 2 senarios (ok.. its frikking 3am so sorry hitcher.. my spelling is going out the window)

1. your insurance company agree to $5000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $8000. so the insurance company pay the first $5000 towards the damages.

2. your insurance company agree to $8000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $5000. so the insurance co pay $5000 towards damages, when you have been paying for $8000 worth of risk. It doesnt seem fair


A few years ago we had a little lazer as a runabout car. It was a 1984 and paintwork wasnt really tidy but it never failed a warrent and always started when you turned the key. My wife used it to go to work and back. Some muppet crashed into it and his insurance company decided the car was worth $1000. I argued for ages that I didnt want $1000, I wanted them to replace the car with a car that always starts, was mechanically sound and always passes a warrent. How much was that car worth?....... to us?

[Grahameeboy]

both missing the point. The bikes value should be imaterial (sp?)

your have 2 senarios (ok.. its frikking 3am so sorry hitcher.. my spelling is going out the window)

1. your insurance company agree to $5000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $8000. so the insurance company pay the first $5000 towards the damages.

2. your insurance company agree to $8000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $5000. so the insurance co pay $5000 towards damages, when you have been paying for $8000 worth of risk. It doesnt seem fair


A few years ago we had a little lazer as a runabout car. It was a 1984 and paintwork wasnt really tidy but it never failed a warrent and always started when you turned the key. My wife used it to go to work and back. Some muppet crashed into it and his insurance company decided the car was worth $1000. I argued for ages that I didnt want $1000, I wanted them to replace the car with a car that always starts, was mechanically sound and always passes a warrent. How much was that car worth?....... to us?

1. You may find that you get paid $8,000

It's the market value of the car not what it is worth to you.

[wingrider]

When i bought my Goldwing 2 years ago, I went to the company that i have all my other insurance with. ( wife works for this company so thought i would get a good deal). They wont insure bikes!!

Just about every other insurance company wouldn't look at me unless i took other insurance with them AND THEN my premium would have been over $2k for $10k cover.

Got put onto Swann.

1st year
$700 for $14k cover

2nd year
As bike now classified as classic,( 20 year old) $430 for agreed value of $14k, personal gear cover value doubled, also pillion personal gear value doubled.

Had a claim when some idiot in a 4x4 backed into it at service station. he wasnt insured but I forced him into signing a liability statement.

Had to order parts in from the states. Sent swann invoices and visa statement showing all costs and currency conversions. As I was doing the repairs myself they allowed 6 hours labour at $60 per hour credited to me.

Did not pay any excess as liability admitted. Had payment for full cost of parts and labour credited to my account within 4 working days even before the parts arrived.

Have put a lot of people onto Swann and not had a single negative comment about them.

Wife could not believe the customer service in respect to her own company.

Ebike used to be good but now dont insure bikes in NZ. Never let there customers know they were dropping them either.

[Pixie]

both missing the point. The bikes value should be imaterial (sp?)

your have 2 senarios (ok.. its frikking 3am so sorry hitcher.. my spelling is going out the window)

1. your insurance company agree to $5000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $8000. so the insurance company pay the first $5000 towards the damages.

2. your insurance company agree to $8000 worth of cover and assign premiums accordingly. You crash and find out your bikes worth $5000. so the insurance co pay $5000 towards damages, when you have been paying for $8000 worth of risk. It doesnt seem fair


A few years ago we had a little lazer as a runabout car. It was a 1984 and paintwork wasnt really tidy but it never failed a warrent and always started when you turned the key. My wife used it to go to work and back. Some muppet crashed into it and his insurance company decided the car was worth $1000. I argued for ages that I didnt want $1000, I wanted them to replace the car with a car that always starts, was mechanically sound and always passes a warrent. How much was that car worth?....... to us?
Think about it.
Some lowlife insures a piece of crap for 1 million and arranges for it to be "stolen" and claims the full amount?
How long do you think there would be an insurance industry available to insure anything?
If you want to make money from insurance claims,there is only one way.
Insure your wife and kill her.
But don't get caught. :bye:

[cowboyz]

Think about it.
Some lowlife insures a piece of crap for 1 million and arranges for it to be "stolen" and claims the full amount?
How long do you think there would be an insurance industry available to insure anything?
If you want to make money from insurance claims,there is only one way.
Insure your wife and kill her.
But don't get caught. :bye:

oh FFS! The key here. - cause your missing the entire point! is the insurance companies seem to be able to get a accurate "market" value of things after the fact but not before. If an insurance co wants to (and they do have the right of refusual) insure some POS for a million then they should honour that contract if something goes wrong. Its not about making money off insurance companies. Its about them doing what they say that would do.

[flyingcrocodile46]

both missing the point.

Not really



A few years ago we had a little lazer as a runabout car. It was a 1984 and paintwork wasnt really tidy but it never failed a warrent and always started when you turned the key. My wife used it to go to work and back. Some muppet crashed into it and his insurance company decided the car was worth $1000. I argued for ages that I didnt want $1000, I wanted them to replace the car with a car that always starts, was mechanically sound and always passes a warrent. How much was that car worth?....... to us?

See. If you had have taken an agreed value policy you could have assigned a value (possibly supported by a friendly valuation) and you would have got exactly what you expected.

[yachtie10]

Thanks guys for bumping my thread
now (if you havent already) could you put your details into the spreadsheet as i would like some more data.

Cheers:yes:

[quackquack]

You can get proper agreed value cover with Swann but you may find you have to prove it's worth what you claim it is. A dealer valuation is sufficient

I think you need to read the policy wording as Swann has the worst agreed value with the agreed value vehicle needing to be in good condition in there opinion, this leaves you totally open as they don't need to listen to any experts it is totally in there opinion whether your bike is in good condition or not and if you will get the agreed value, so be very careful with the swan wording.

I believe this is worst agreed value policies in the market and if far to weighted in the insurance companies favor. Get to independant valuations of you bike and most will agree to that value for you.

[cowboyz]

I think you need to read the policy wording as Swann has the worst agreed value with the agreed value vehicle needing to be in good condition in there opinion, this leaves you totally open as they don't need to listen to any experts it is totally in there opinion whether your bike is in good condition or not and if you will get the agreed value, so be very careful with the swan wording.

.

of course, after it gets stolen and some muppet breaks your ignition and thrashs the crap out of your bike its not exactly in good condition anymore is it?

[flyingcrocodile46]

I think you need to read the policy wording as Swann has the worst agreed value with the agreed value vehicle needing to be in good condition in there opinion, this leaves you totally open as they don't need to listen to any experts it is totally in there opinion whether your bike is in good condition or not and if you will get the agreed value, so be very careful with the swan wording.

I believe this is worst agreed value policies in the market and if far to weighted in the insurance companies favor. Get to independant valuations of you bike and most will agree to that value for you.

Which is exactly what I did

[geoffm]

SV1000 - new November 2007. Just renewed the insurance for $763.09 with Kiwibike (Star as insurerer). Age 42, ful NCB, 2 claims in 14 months (blind drivers fault in both cases), last at fault MC claim in 1992.
ACC claims - first in 1991, other circa 1995 - total value less than $100.
ACC doesn't work out for me...

[jetboy]

There are policies out there for modern bikes with agreed value extensions, with some offering:

- NEW replacement motorcycle following a total loss claim if your bike is less than x years old and has travelled less than x kilometers
- If you buy a secondhand bike and you insure it for the same amount you paid for it, that sum insured will be the basis of a total loss claims settlement for a whole year

Just keep in mind (http://www.icnz.org.nz/consumer/purchasing.php):
The underlying principle of any insurance contract is to enable you to be in the same position you were in before a loss. This is because if you were in a better position after an insurance claim there would be a financial incentive to make claims. So if your bike is really worth $10k instead of the $15k it's been insured for over the past 3 years expect your claim to be settled on $10K.

Then there are classic motorcycle insurance policies for bikes over a certain age which are based on an agreed value.

In every agreed value policy wording I have read there is a clause that states that if the market value is x% less than the agreed value, then the basis of settlement changes to market value. Or like the one mentioned before where someone thought "proper agreed value" will be paid - this is only if the vehicle is in good condition in the insurers opinion.

All policies are not the same, so do your homework or better still ask someone in the know for advice - that's what brokers are for! :niceone: