Bike in the shop after an accident - do they have to give me a loan bike?

[James47889]

Hi everyone, I had a crash where a driver pulled out in front of me and I hit him, the bike went down and it did some damage. He has accepted liability and it's all going through his insurance. The bike will be in the shop for about a week, possibly longer because they've got to get all the assessment as well as the repairs done. Does the insurance company have to provide me with a loan bike whilst mine is being repaired? Or do I have to pay for my own transport?

Thanks

[BuzzardNZ]

Hi everyone, I had a crash where a driver pulled out in front of me and I hit him, the bike went down and it did some damage. He has accepted liability and it's all going through his insurance. The bike will be in the shop for about a week, possibly longer because they've got to get all the assessment as well as the repairs done. Does the insurance company have to provide me with a loan bike whilst mine is being repaired? Or do I have to pay for my own transport?

Thanks

I never got one when I:

a) had my bike written off after car hit me ( car drivers fault ).
b) bike was stolen.

Both times I was fully insured.

[bluninja]

If the other guy is liable then any direct loss suffered SHOULD be covered by the insurers. However someone admitting liability at the scene does not guarantee that the insurer will agree and they may try to wriggle out of paying up.

I'd have a chat the other drivers insurers and get them to put something in writing that they will cover the reasonable cost of hiring a vehicle for the time your is off the road.

[James47889]

I never got one when I:

a) had my bike written off after car hit me ( car drivers fault ).
b) bike was stolen.

Both times I was fully insured.

Thanks that's good to know. Will have a chat with the insurer

[James47889]

If the other guy is liable then any direct loss suffered SHOULD be covered by the insurers. However someone admitting liability at the scene does not guarantee that the insurer will agree and they may try to wriggle out of paying up.

I'd have a chat the other drivers insurers and get them to put something in writing that they will cover the reasonable cost of hiring a vehicle for the time your is off the road.

Sorry better clear up that his admission of liability is in writing with his insurance company so my excess has been waived and it's all being covered by his insurer. I'll see what I can do. Cheers

[nzspokes]

When mine was in for crash repair they lent me a 650 that was awefull. But better than driving.

[SMOKEU]

When mine was in for crash repair they lent me a 650 that was awefull. But better than driving.

Was it a Hyosung?

[DMNTD]

Sorry better clear up that his admission of liability is in writing with his insurance company so my excess has been waived and it's all being covered by his insurer. I'll see what I can do. Cheers

100% irrelevant who's fault it was and it also has zero to do with the bike shop.
Chat to your insurer and see if they will cover a rental whilst you bike is being repaired however I think you'll find that unless you have specific cover for it then you'll be shit out of luck

[Oakie]

It's like employment issues. What does the (contract) policy say. If it's not stipulated in there ye be out of luck.

[James Deuce]

Not unless you bought a policy that says that explicitly. You can pay for that service. Try not to crash. It makes life less inconvenient.

How about taking responsibility for own transport issues? Unless someone nice offers to help you, in which case accept the offer. The world isn't there to sort your shit out.

[Big Dave]

As per Jim's comment. Read the policy. It says what to - or not to expect.

[James47889]

Not unless you bought a policy that says that explicitly. You can pay for that service. Try not to crash. It makes life less inconvenient.

How about taking responsibility for own transport issues? Unless someone nice offers to help you, in which case accept the offer. The world isn't there to sort your shit out.

It wasn't my fault I crashed, as I stated. I shouldn't have to cover them, I pay a lot less taking the bike rather a bus throughout Auckland city; that should be covered by the guy that pulled in front of me.

[Katman]

It wasn't my fault I crashed, as I stated. I shouldn't have to cover them, I pay a lot less taking the bike rather a bus throughout Auckland city; that should be covered by the guy that pulled in front of me.

Were you riding with your eyes shut?

[Flip]

Unless you have it specifically specified in your insurace you don't have a snow flakes chance in hell.

The think the term is liquidated damages, you will find they are usually excluded.

[James Deuce]

It wasn't my fault I crashed, as I stated. I shouldn't have to cover them, I pay a lot less taking the bike rather a bus throughout Auckland city; that should be covered by the guy that pulled in front of me.

Life isn't fair. Fault doesn't matter. The voice of non-judgmental experience shall relay the only useful piece of advice it has to offer after nearly 30 years of being massively inconvenienced from time to time. Don't. Crash.

Actually there's another piece. Insurance companies will never do anything that is to the advantage of any insured party. Their job is to protect their shareholder's investment.

[nzspokes]

Was it a Hyosung?

Nah a Vstorm.

[argada]

Not unless you bought a policy that says that explicitly. You can pay for that service. Try not to crash. It makes life less inconvenient.

How about taking responsibility for own transport issues? Unless someone nice offers to help you, in which case accept the offer. The world isn't there to sort your shit out.

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

[skippa1]

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

Thats how it works....they fuck your shit up and you get inconvenienced. Welcome to the real world

[cs363]

Were you riding with your eyes shut?

Wide shut by the sound of it.

That's the trouble with most people these days though, everything is everybody else's fault and the world owes them a living.
I'm reading a book about it at the moment:

http://friedchickenandmetal.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/most-people-are-cunts-by-dr-seuss.jpg

[James Deuce]

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

Blimey, I had no idea people were that naive. You need to take responsibility for organising your own alternate travel plans. You are not going to get any help from insurance companies to get about unless you've paid for that privilege. So you would need to read your policy to see if you'd bought one that provided that sort of cover.

Nice offers? Usually when I'm inconvenienced, a friend will help out until I've got my alternate plans in place. You don't do that for other people?

Irrespective of your beliefs or what is right and fair, the only thing you are entitled to is what is documented in your insurance policy, should your insurance company choose to honour that commitment. Your contract is with your insurance company, not the other bloke's. If you choose to pay extra for a policy that provides for reimbursement for travel costs or a rental vehicle then you can claim that from your insurance company who then may seek reimbursement from the other party's insurance company. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could think that it would work any differently.

[argada]

Blimey, I had no idea people were that naive. You need to take responsibility for organising your own alternate travel plans. You are not going to get any help from insurance companies to get about unless you've paid for that privilege. So you would need to read your policy to see if you'd bought one that provided that sort of cover.

Nice offers? Usually when I'm inconvenienced, a friend will help out until I've got my alternate plans in place. You don't do that for other people?

Irrespective of your beliefs or what is right and fair, the only thing you are entitled to is what is documented in your insurance policy, should your insurance company choose to honour that commitment. Your contract is with your insurance company, not the other bloke's. If you choose to pay extra for a policy that provides for reimbursement for travel costs or a rental vehicle then you can claim that from your insurance company who then may seek reimbursement from the other party's insurance company. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could think that it would work any differently.


For the sake of argument, lets say the victim has no insurance. If the offending driver took off, then fair enough, victim is SOL. But that is not the case. So what? Still can't correspond with the offending driver's insurance company directly? or never mind the insurance company - go after the driver directly? Forget about vehicles, if a drunk person stumbles into your yard at night and damages your property, you should have every right to go after the drunk for compensation.

I'm not naive, I wouldn't expect the stars to magically align and make things right.
I'm not saying it will be easy or even practical, but you have every right to pursue what you are fairly owed.

I'm a little surprised by the attitude of the majority of responses. So the general consensus is; "Tough luck, suck it up, and shame on you for thinking you could get compensated for alternative transport arrangement. How naive of you, take some responsibility!? You are entitled to f- all"
I don't know, maybe its late and I my brain cannot comprehend the other side of the argument - but... WTF?
Once again, I'm not saying Santa clause should pop out of thin air and hand out rolls of cash to make things right. You should have every right to sue to guy and let the judge decide what you are entitled to.

I acknowledge the most practical thing to do, most likely, is to take what the insurance company wants to pay you in this instance. Realistically, in the real world, anything else might not be worth the trouble. But I don't get why the responses here are so... hostile.

[gammaguy]

Sorry better clear up that his admission of liability is in writing with his insurance company so my excess has been waived and it's all being covered by his insurer. I'll see what I can do. Cheers


It wasn't my fault I crashed, as I stated. I shouldn't have to cover them, I pay a lot less taking the bike rather a bus throughout Auckland city; that should be covered by the guy that pulled in front of me.

It comez under the heading of consequential loss and unless you are covered for it.. Well you aren't covered for it

[DanielM8]

I don't get why the responses here are so... hostile.
You must be new here.... Welcome to KiwiBiker.


Sent from my iShit using Tapatalk

[skippa1]

you should have every right to go after the drunk for compensation.

you have every right to pursue what you are fairly owed.

my brain cannot comprehend the other side of the argument

Santa clause should pop out of thin air and hand out rolls of cash to

what you are entitled to.

e.

Let me see now, your sense of entitlement indicates to me that you are probably on some sort of benefit.
your lack of comprehension of the facts is a sign that you are young.....probably under 25

Rights and entitlements in this case a a fallacy. You may be morally entitled to help, but legally, you are not......unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this. You will pay more for your insurance to get it.

This isn't hostile.....it's life. Put your big boy pants on

[swbarnett]

You may be morally entitled to help, but legally, you are not......unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this.
So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

[TheDemonLord]

Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

[Laava]

Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

Yep! And if you were uninsured in the first place, you may have to do this to get anything.
This is the time where you think you are fuckin glad you were insured.
No-one wins in an auto accident.

[BoristheBiter]

So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

Yep you're right you can get the other person to pay by...........


Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

..........what he said.

[Oscar]

It's like employment issues. What does the (contract) policy say. If it's not stipulated in there ye be out of luck.

Not quite.
If it's not stipulated on your policy, then it becomes an uninsured loss which the insured may take up direct with the other party (or the other party's insurer).
The swiftest way to get some action would be to send the other guy an e-mail saying that you're going to charge him for a rental whilst your bike is off the road.

[Jackpot]

I understand the POV but someone seems to be forgetting that insurance is a business, not a charity where you get a pat on the back for "not being at fault"

[James Deuce]

Not quite.
If it's not stipulated on your policy, then it becomes an uninsured loss which the insured may take up direct with the other party (or the other party's insurer).
The swiftest way to get some action would be to send the other guy an e-mail saying that you're going to charge him for a rental whilst your bike is off the road.

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

[Oscar]

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

It's always going to be a long shot.
If it's not specifically insured (and I've never seen a bike policy with a loss of use extension), then it becomes a beef between you and the other guy (and his insurer).
I guess if you wanted to take it to its logical ending, you'd wind up in small claims.

[James Deuce]

Usually the vehicle offered is a car too. I think a bike might be a bit of a reach for most insurance companies.

[ellipsis]

...as thousands of "insured' Christchurch people will testify....having insurance does not mean you are 'really' insured in many cases...life's a trap but it's still a life...better than the alternative...

[Banditbandit]

Hi everyone, I had a crash where a driver pulled out in front of me and I hit him, the bike went down and it did some damage. He has accepted liability and it's all going through his insurance. The bike will be in the shop for about a week, possibly longer because they've got to get all the assessment as well as the repairs done. Does the insurance company have to provide me with a loan bike whilst mine is being repaired? Or do I have to pay for my own transport?

Thanks

No they don't - but check your insurance. SOME policies say that in this sort of incident the insurance will pay for a replacement transport - such as hire ...

[James Deuce]

No they don't - but check your insurance. SOME policies say that in this sort of incident the insurance will pay for a replacement transport - such as hire ...

I'm pretty certain everyone has said this at some point, however that type of response seems to infuriate millenials for some reason.

[Banditbandit]

I'm pretty certain everyone has said this at some point, however that type of response seems to infuriate millenials for some reason.

Yeah .. sorry people - I didn't read the whole thread .. I didn't even realise how big it had grown in the last few hours ... humblest apologies for repetition and redundancy ...

[James Deuce]

Yeah .. sorry people - I didn't read the whole thread .. I didn't even realise how big it had grown in the last few hours ... humblest apologies for repetition and redundancy ...

I wasn't being sarky, I promise. I have to admit to kind of scratching my head at what some people's expectations of the insurance claim process are.

[swbarnett]

I wasn't being sarky, I promise. I have to admit to kind of scratching my head at what some people's expectations of the insurance claim process are.
I think the confusion comes from some people talking about insurance and others talking about expectations of compensation from the guilty party.

I agree that these are not the same.

[Kendoll]

That's the trouble with most people these days though, everything is everybody else's fault and the world owes them a living.
I'm reading a book about it at the moment:


This book should be mandatory for every kid when they learn to read... Love it :killingme

[skippa1]

So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

What I am saying is......you have a reading and comprehension disability

get some help

[swbarnett]

What I am saying is......you have a reading and comprehension disability

get some help
Personal abuse will get you nowhere. Clarification of an apparent contradiction is all I asked for.

You suggested that "unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this" you are not entitled to "this". Therefore, an uninsured innocent party is entitled to nothing as they are not covered for anything. The question here is what one is entitled to from the guilty as compensation under law. Irrespective of their insured status.

[Berries]

I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs.


Usually the vehicle offered is a car too. I think a bike might be a bit of a reach for most insurance companies.
No shit with that kind of record.

[skippa1]

Personal abuse will get you nowhere. Clarification of an apparent contradiction is all I asked for.

You suggested that "unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this" you are not entitled to "this". Therefore, an uninsured innocent party is entitled to nothing as they are not covered for anything. The question here is what one is entitled to from the guilty as compensation under law. Irrespective of their insured status.

There is no ambiguity or contradiction in my post. It is quite simple really.

the issue I take is the use of the words entitlement and/or rights.


entitlement - right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits); "entitlements make up the major part of the federal budget"
claim, title - an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

the only entitlement or rights you have, if insured, are those agreed in your policy between you and your insurer. Simple.

from a legal perspective ( and I am by no means a legal expert) if there is indeed a "right" or "entitlement" under law for those uninsured, then why would you have to take court action to benefit from it?

I do not believe that there is any legal right, or entitlement, rather an opportunity to take a civil action to try and retrieve some " out of pocket" costs.

I would also suggest that the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit awarded by the courts and the time it took to go through the system would far exceed the time you were inconvenienced.

[Owl]

Insurance companies will never do anything that is to the advantage of any insured party.

Not entirely true Jim. My experience would suggest they'll bend over backwards for you if you give them something back and/or work with them.

[swbarnett]

Thanks you for your post. This clears up any confusion I had about what you were saying.


There is no ambiguity or contradiction in my post. It is quite simple really.

the issue I take is the use of the words entitlement and/or rights.


the only entitlement or rights you have, if insured, are those agreed in your policy between you and your insurer. Simple.
Surely this is only true is you are at fault? If I understand correctly, when you're not at fault your insurer only acts as a conduit the the other party or their insurer.


from a legal perspective ( and I am by no means a legal expert) if there is indeed a "right" or "entitlement" under law for those uninsured, then why would you have to take court action to benefit from it?
Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.


I do not believe that there is any legal right, or entitlement,
You may well be right in this. Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.


rather an opportunity to take a civil action to try and retrieve some " out of pocket" costs.
If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.


I would also suggest that the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit awarded by the courts and the time it took to go through the system would far exceed the time you were inconvenienced.
Of this I have no doubt. It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

[cynna]

i wasnt allowed one when i waited 6 months for parts after an accident was covered - was told the cost of insurance would skyrocket if loaner bikes were part of full insurance

[skippa1]

Thanks you for your post. This clears up any confusion I had about what you were saying.


Surely this is only true is you are at fault? If I understand correctly, when you're not at fault your insurer only acts as a conduit the the other party or their insurer.


Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.


You may well be right in this. Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.


If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.


Of this I have no doubt. It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

This could go around in forum circles forever.
Bottom line is, try it....go on, I dare you. You will be as disappointed as I was when an accident happened and I couldn't get any help with transport when not at fault......on more than a couple of occasions( I'm an old cunt). The moral sense of entitlement when you have done nothing wrong, will still turn into a big fat nothing. Go on.....try it

[FJRider]

Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.

You are entitled to what conditions you agreed to ... by you signing your insurance policy ... not what any "Joe Bloggs" agreed to in signing their insurance policy ...



Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.

If there is only a "Moral obligation" ... you are allowed to ask for that obligation to be fulfilled. And they are allowed to refuse to comply. If they choose ... and if no precedent to the contrary has already been set ...


If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.

Funny that ... :blank: but it has happened ... (Don't ask-don't get)


It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

Fighting and winning is the easy bit (with or without money) ... actually getting the "Losers" to pay up ... is another thing ...

[swbarnett]

Guys, it seems that it may not be absolutely clear what I'm asking so let me restate the question in a way that may be clearer:

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

[FJRider]

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

Take a read of this ...

http://www.nzila.org/conferences/docs/christchurch/Neil%20Campbell%20-%20Damages%20Against%20Insurers.pdf

[skippa1]

Guys, it seems that it may not be absolutely clear what I'm asking so let me restate the question in a way that may be clearer:

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

I don't think this is a yes or no question. I doubt there is a written law covering such circumstance. Entitlement to repair of your damaged vehicle is clearer, again as you say, dependant on the guilty parties ability to pay.
consequential damage is far harder to quantify, replacement transport, loss of earnings, embarrassment, etc is far more subjective.
Again, entitlement, either by law, by right (moral) or otherwise is a matter a court could rule on, the cost of persuing this is most likely higher than the award of any damages, if any are awarded. Let's face it, if they can't afford insurance, they won't be able to compensate you for consequential damages.

[FJRider]

Let's face it, if they can't afford insurance, they won't be able to compensate you for consequential damages.

If you are (fully .. ??) insured ... your insurance Company has to pay as per the contract you signed with them. Regardless of fact that the other party was at fault and not insured. It is then usual for your Insurance Company to chase them for payment. But it is not dependent on their paying ... to get your vehicle repaired.

The policy for repair is between you and your insurance company (end of story). And any other claims to the guilty party needs court action. It may be wise then ... if you talk to your insurance rep about what extra costs they might claim against them. Using the bluff of a (large .. ??) insurance company to add (implied) weight to your claim.

[skippa1]

If you are (fully .. ??) insured ... your insurance Company has to pay as per the contract you signed with them. Regardless of fact that the other party was at fault and not insured. It is then usual for your Insurance Company to chase them for payment. But it is not dependent on their paying ... to get your vehicle repaired.

never said any different


The policy for repair is between you and your insurance company (end of story). And any other claims to the guilty party needs court action. It may be wise then ... if you talk to your insurance rep about what extra costs they might claim against them. Using the bluff of a (large .. ??) insurance company to add (implied) weight to your claim.

Forget the vehicle repair. It's about consequential damages.....a vehicle for you to use because yours is getting fixed due to the other parties error.

[Theantidote]

insurance companies are staffed by fuckwits with over inflated egos bordering on ...i don't know...my experience with insurance companies regardless of the situation is they'll try and screw anyone ...especially the ones they assume are weak ...
look up the history of how we ended up with the insurance scam ...then check your house insurance policies, your life insurance policies and no doubt you'll find the you're pretty well screwed regardless ...
buy a cheap bike, don't get insurance, don't crash and you'll be laughing...
just my opinion ...which may or may not be your perception of my reality ...

[FJRider]

Forget the vehicle repair. It's about consequential damages.....a vehicle for you to use because yours is getting fixed due to the other parties error.

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.

[skippa1]

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.

Ummm. That's exactly what I have been saying all along.

best preach to someone that disagrees with you

[Oscar]

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.


You are confusing legal liability with what's covered by your insurance policy.

The contract with the insurer is for damage to his bike, not consequential loss.
Coverage for consequential losses usually only appear on commercial motor insurance, and then as an expensive option.
Although on (very rare) occasions, an insurer may seek uninsured losses from the third party's insurer, they are not legally obliged to do so.
So by all means ask your insurer, but I doubt that they'll do anything.

After that, the best advice is for you to approach the third party directly requesting recompense for travel costs.
As this is covered by Section Two (damage to third party property) in his policy, he should then pass this on to his insurers.
If that fails, then a small claim court visit might be in order (and again, the other guy's insurer will have to front this).

[swbarnett]

Thanks Oscar, this answers the question precisely.

[FJRider]

You are confusing legal liability with what's covered by your insurance policy.

The contract with the insurer is for damage to his bike, not consequential loss.
Coverage for consequential losses usually only appear on commercial motor insurance, and then as an expensive option.
Although on (very rare) occasions, an insurer may seek uninsured losses from the third party's insurer, they are not legally obliged to do so.
So by all means ask your insurer, but I doubt that they'll do anything.

After that, the best advice is for you to approach the third party directly requesting recompense for travel costs.
As this is covered by Section Two (damage to third party property) in his policy, he should then pass this on to his insurers.
If that fails, then a small claim court visit might be in order (and again, the other guy's insurer will have to front this).

Nope ... I stated anything not actually listed in your policy may require court action to resolve. ...and are those things you discuss with your insurer when you make the claim. With stated declaration that you prefer to an out of court settlement in this regard.

Approach the "Guilty" party directly and await the laughter ... or ... get a claim of harassment against you. If a court case does eventuate ... such claims (regardless how false) will go against you. Go through official channels (ie: A Lawyer) cross the t's and dot the i's ...

If you insist on directly approaching the accused/guilty party ... go with proof of the appropriate laws (in writing) to which you base your claim. Not just a list of things you want (or hoping for)

[Oscar]

Nope ... I stated anything not actually listed in your policy may require court action to resolve. ...and are those things you discuss with your insurer when you make the claim. With stated declaration that you prefer to an out of court settlement in this regard.

Approach the "Guilty" party directly and await the laughter ... or ... get a claim of harassment against you. If a court case does eventuate ... such claims (regardless how false) will go against you. Go through official channels (ie: A Lawyer) cross the t's and dot the i's ...

If you insist on directly approaching the accused/guilty party ... go with proof of the appropriate laws (in writing) to which you base your claim. Not just a list of things you want (or hoping for)

It may require court action, but only as a last resort. You should also bear in mind that any court action would require the other guy's insurer to respond, an expensive exercise that they'd rather avoid.

As I said - just because it's not covered by your insurance, doesn't mean it isn't covered by his. When you make a claim, you're claiming on Section One of the policy i.e. damage to your vehicle, which is usually restricted to the vehicle only (+ maybe riding gear). When the other guy claims, and is deemed to be at fault, the damage to your vehicle is covered under Section Two - Legal Liability to Third Parties. This opens the claim up to more than the damage to your vehicle.

You have every right to say to the other guy - "I have some uninsured losses that I think you are responsible for..perhaps you could take it up with your insurer" He would be hard pressed to argue this, since his insurer has accepted liability for his actions (by paying for the damage to your vehicle). He is in fact contractually obliged to pass on such correspondence to his insurer as he has subrogated his rights to the claim process under the terms of his policy (to his insurer) by making the claim. Sending a copy of the correspondence to the guy's insurer wouldn't hurt.

If this fails, a small claim action against the guy would certainly drag his insurer in.

[Daffyd]

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

Enlighten me guys; what's a FOWNOVA?

[FJRider]

It may require court action, but only as a last resort. You should also bear in mind that any court action would require the other guy's insurer to respond, an expensive exercise that they'd rather avoid.

As I said - just because it's not covered by your insurance, doesn't mean it isn't covered by his. When you make a claim, you're claiming on Section One of the policy i.e. damage to your vehicle, which is usually restricted to the vehicle only (+ maybe riding gear). When the other guy claims, and is deemed to be at fault, the damage to your vehicle is covered under Section Two - Legal Liability to Third Parties. This opens the claim up to more than the damage to your vehicle.

You have every right to say to the other guy - "I have some uninsured losses that I think you are responsible for..perhaps you could take it up with your insurer" He would be hard pressed to argue this, since his insurer has accepted liability for his actions (by paying for the damage to your vehicle). He is in fact contractually obliged to pass on such correspondence to his insurer as he has subrogated his rights to the claim process under the terms of his policy (to his insurer) by making the claim. Sending a copy of the correspondence to the guy's insurer wouldn't hurt.

If this fails, a small claim action against the guy would certainly drag his insurer in.

Taking action in the small claims court is the usual method for such small (relatively speaking) costs ... and a letter from your Insurance rep telling you the other party is at fault/admitting responsibility (the later preferred) will be of immense help in being awarded costs.

Most insurance type court cases tend to get stalled by the insurer of the alleged person responsible ... time wasting to ensure loss of will/interest to continue.

It is usual for insurance claims to be dealt with ... between the insurance company's themselves. The only input the claimants of either party make is filling out the forms and admitting/denying guilt ... something most company's prefer.

[Oscar]

Taking action in the small claims court is the usual method for such small (relatively speaking) costs ... and a letter from your Insurance rep telling you the other party is at fault/admitting responsibility (the later preferred) will be of immense help in being awarded costs.

Most insurance type court cases tend to get stalled by the insurer of the alleged person responsible ... time wasting to ensure loss of will/interest to continue.

It is usual for insurance claims to be dealt with ... between the insurance company's themselves. The only input the claimants of either party make is filling out the forms and admitting/denying guilt ... something most company's prefer.

Please re-read my post (actually the whole thread).
We're taking about uninsured losses.


As for "stalling tactics" you've been reading too much John Grisham.
The only cases that actually get to court are ones where liability is disputed.

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.

[skippa1]

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.

Hey......I have already said that at least twice:msn-wink:

[Oscar]

Hey......I have already said that at least twice:msn-wink:

Sometimes it has to be said more than once around here...

[russd7]

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.
small claims court = no lawyers and is in front of an adjudicator (usually a judge but not always).
accidents whether your fault or not are always gonna cost you in some way or another that cannot be claimed back from the other person, unfortunately
its a tough shit situation and all you can do is vent your frustration and move on with your life