Market value?

[ldcroberts]

Thanks to a less than observant cager I now have to justify what he has to pay me to compensate me for the loss of my bike. Keeping all the distractions like insurance etc out of it, it comes down to he has to pay me:

"Fair market value" - which is the highest price for the property that a willing buyer would have paid to a willing seller, assuming:
1. That there is no pressure on either one to buy or sell; and
2. That the buyer and seller know all the issues and history of the bike.

I want you to answer, honestly, what you would sell your bike for - assuming you aren't forced to sell for any reason other than the price is fair that you could sell it without feeling like you made money or lost money realistically.

Assume the following (keeping the numbers simple):

1. You paid $10,000 for the bike (which is exactly average as to what they go for in the market)
2. You have had it 4 months and maintained it carefully. (average commuting of 100km per week)

How much would you want for your bike (without being either greedy or generous to the buyer)?

[JimO]

10k 4 months ago so replacement should be 10k

[Tazz]

$10k. Any gear you were wearing get damaged?

[ldcroberts]

helmet has some marks/chips so probably best replaced, some other scuffs but nothing major on the other gear. Bike was brand new so he is claiming it's gone way down in value over 4 months (e.g. over $1000) by using some vague criteria based on what the occasional person who is forced to sell a brand new bike second hand can get - but that doesn't fit right with the "willing seller" part of the clause I'm sure.

[unstuck]

$12000:Punk::Punk:

[ital916]

Not your fault, thus the part at fault pays what your bike is insured for. If it was your fault, then the insurance company pays market value.

That's how insurance works innit.....well that's what my insurance companies have always advised before signing the paperwork.

[Gremlin]

If I remember correctly, insurance companies usually have a policy that if a bike less than 6 months old is claimed on, it's a new bike.

[ldcroberts]

In my opinion - backed up by talking to their valuer - they are only wanting to pay what it would go for if I was forced to sell it second hand and calling that "market value", they are not looking at what an average person would sell it for willingly (presumably because nobody does actually willingly sell a bike so new so soon after unless they have mitigating circumstances).

I think most things you are forced to sell second hand go for lower value (e.g. try on-selling your beer in a pub after you drank some), but what has that got to do with him putting it right, that's where I think the insurance companies are misinterpreting the law. If someone spills your beer they have to give you another one the same where you are the first owner, not argue that you couldn't sell it for much therefore they pay you a pittance, nor buy you a beer but first drink as much as you had already drunk out of it before handing it to you.

[bogan]

4 months is nothing, 10K payout; any fluctuations in market value will be seasonal rather than actual over that time anyway.

[Tazz]

Yeah it's all BS. You're not trying to sell it now, you weren't trying to sell it then and (I assume) have been forced into this position by someone elses neglegience, not your own.
As other have stated, whatever they give you should enable you to replace it with exactly what you had. That is in an ideal world though :confused:

A 4 month old bike is still new, and you probably have had a few big-ish servicing costs to pay as well as having to replace your gear. What have they said about those?

If they get toey about it tell them to just find/supply you with all these 201X bikes with XXXX km's for the price they are saying it is worth.
Yes you do lose a lot of value when you ride a bike off the lot but no one forks out for one with the knowledge they want to sell if 4 months down the track because of that exact fact!

Also you would still be under warranty and possibly have a servicing/WOF deal. How many second hand bikes do you pick up with that.

[imdying]

What model/year bike, what kms, what are they offering.

Let us put it to the test, via trademe etc, and see if they are able to replace it for the value they're offering. If it can be done, no big deal, get that bike. If it can't, there are none available, it's not enough money, then push back.

You could cut all the BS in the meantime out and just PM Oscar though, you'll get a faster more accurate response.

[Hitcher]

Not your fault, thus the part at fault pays what your bike is insured for. If it was your fault, then the insurance company pays market value.

That's how insurance works innit.....well that's what my insurance companies have always advised before signing the paperwork.

No, that's not how it works. Market value applies for any claim made.

[swbarnett]

Bike was brand new so he is claiming it's gone way down in value over 4 months (e.g. over $1000) by using some vague criteria based on what the occasional person who is forced to sell a brand new bike second hand can get - but that doesn't fit right with the "willing seller" part of the clause I'm sure.
Like HELL!

The bike was new and only 4 months old. If insured I would not accept anything less than the full value of a NEW replacement (even if the price has gone up). If not insured I would settle for no less from the guilty party.

[IkieBikie]

How much damage???


I assume talking about replacement value its a right off??

Get the price to fix it up and ask for that!!!

[ldcroberts]

It's a 2014 Kawasaki Ninja 300, special edition with ABS, Burnt Orange. 1700kms on the clock, 2 months left on the inital rego. So it's barely run in (runs in at 1600km) carefully as per manufacturers instructions (never again will I do this, 60km top speed is painful for so long). Paid $10,349 on road, they are offering $9000 - which is probably about right for what someone would sell at if forced to sell, but there are none for sale of course.

International law says it has to be fair market value (seller and buyer happily agree) - again this will never happen on a near new bike due to the idea of the other person "tainting" the bike by riding it poorly which we all have when we think about a bike we haven't seen the previous rider of so the buyer is always wanting to pay way less and the seller wants what they paid back.

Oncoming car turned straight across into side road without seeing me, no time to stop - i started emergency braking as soon as I saw him start turning - 100% his fault already agreed by everyone.

Repair bill is $13,000

[Mike.Gayner]

Bike was brand new so he is claiming it's gone way down in value over 4 monthss

That's a pretty important point - the "market value" is literally what the marketplace deems it's worth. The marketplace won't pay full new price for a used bike. Hate to tell you bud, but a 4 month old bike isn't worth the same as a new bike. Period.

edit: I should also note that insurance companies deal with this shit every day. EVERYONE thinks that their vehicle is worth more because of x, y and z. Insurance companies aren't going to apply whatever twisted logic leads you to believe that your used bike is worth the same as a new bike.

[discotex]

Assuming your definition is correct, no willing buyer would pay factory new price for a 4 month old bike. IRD depreciation using diminishing value would be $3k in the first year on a $10k bike so ~$1k in 4 months. That should be your yardstick for negotiations.

[ldcroberts]

That's a pretty important point - the "market value" is literally what the marketplace deems it's worth. The marketplace won't pay full new price for a used bike. Hate to tell you bud, but a 4 month old bike isn't worth the same as a new bike. Period.

A beer someone has taken a single sip out of is worth less in the "market place", go knock someones beer and give them next to nothing in recompense (because 2nd hand beer is worth way way less) and tell them they have "twisted logic" in thinking their beer was worth what they paid for it earlier.

I believe it's the insurance companies who have twisted the logic here - this may be most of them in New Zealand, but they can still be educated and changed. You can't compare the value to a "2nd" owner to that of the "1st" owner - it's faulty logic. The more owners on a bike the less people will pay to buy it sure, but what's that got to do with someones responsibility to make things right?

To illustrate this further, lets say nobody buys second hand bikes, there is no market (maybe some new legislation outlaws it). What then when you get wiped out? they still have to make it right somehow. Same with beer. Same with a restaurant meal you've had one bite out of. Etc. I think the fact that the 2nd hand value is a big number has people confused, it's still not comparable.

[Gremlin]

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.

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.

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

[ldcroberts]

if they are really playing that game then my best move is to take them to the district court, get fair value out of them and then ask the court to put a punitive fine on them to prevent them doing it to other people, as I think there will be other people around with a sour taste in their mouths and I don't just want it to be fair for me, rather fair for everyone.

[imdying]

No, don't play all your best cards up front. They expect you to push back, so do so.

The value of that bike appears to be $9899 ORC + delivery (advert says free shipping, and I assume there is no difference between 2013 and 2014... your bike was a 13 first registered in 14 yes?).

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-632407635.htm

Send them that link, tell them that is what you want, and that how much they pay all up is entirely their business. See what floats back.

[Supermac Jr]

The words from my policy...

If there is total or constructive total Loss occurring within 12 months of the Insured Motorcycle being first registered as a new motorcycle, We
will at Our option under Section 1 either:

(i) provide a new replacement motorcycle; or
(ii) reimburse the price for which a new replacement motorcycle of similar make and model could be purchased

whichever is the lesser of (i) or (ii).

You will need to fight for Dollar you want. i'd be arguing for a replacement as there aren't any 'similar make and model' bikes around - none on Trade me. Good luck with this one!

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's a 2014 Kawasaki Ninja 300, special edition with ABS, Burnt Orange. 1700kms on the clock, 2 months left on the inital rego. So it's barely run in (runs in at 1600km) carefully as per manufacturers instructions (never again will I do this, 60km top speed is painful for so long). Paid $10,349 on road, they are offering $9000 - which is probably about right for what someone would sell at if forced to sell, but there are none for sale of course.

International law says it has to be fair market value (seller and buyer happily agree) - again this will never happen on a near new bike due to the idea of the other person "tainting" the bike by riding it poorly which we all have when we think about a bike we haven't seen the previous rider of so the buyer is always wanting to pay way less and the seller wants what they paid back.

Oncoming car turned straight across into side road without seeing me, no time to stop - i started emergency braking as soon as I saw him start turning - 100% his fault already agreed by everyone.

Repair bill is $13,000

They are trying to fuck you. Get lawyered up. I have a recommendation for you: a mate of mine is a specialist insurance lawyer. Its what he does. Its all he does. He will tell you. I have PM'ed you his website. My serious suggeston is that you talk to someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about. That isnt me. Its not any of these internet people (if indeed they are people and not just the voices in my head).

[SMOKEU]

So it's barely run in (runs in at 1600km) carefully as per manufacturers instructions (never again will I do this, 60km top speed is painful for so long).

You should run an engine in reasonably hard, not nanna it around.

[Tazz]

They are trying to fuck you. Get lawyered up. I have a recommendation for you: a mate of mine is a specialist insurance lawyer. Its what he does. Its all he does. He will tell you. I have PM'ed you his website. My serious suggeston is that you talk to someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about. That isnt me. Its not any of these internet people (if indeed they are people and not just the voices in my head).

Good advice, however if he took a grand less would he still be in the same position as he would with a win with a lawyer....minus their fees?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Good advice, however if he took a grand less would he still be in the same position as he would with a win with a lawyer....minus their fees?

I have no idea. but from my skim read of the thread wasn't he being rorted to the tune of $3k?

[Mike.Gayner]

A beer someone has taken a single sip out of is worth less in the "market place", go knock someones beer and give them next to nothing in recompense (because 2nd hand beer is worth way way less) and tell them they have "twisted logic" in thinking their beer was worth what they paid for it earlier.

I believe it's the insurance companies who have twisted the logic here - this may be most of them in New Zealand, but they can still be educated and changed. You can't compare the value to a "2nd" owner to that of the "1st" owner - it's faulty logic. The more owners on a bike the less people will pay to buy it sure, but what's that got to do with someones responsibility to make things right?

To illustrate this further, lets say nobody buys second hand bikes, there is no market (maybe some new legislation outlaws it). What then when you get wiped out? they still have to make it right somehow. Same with beer. Same with a restaurant meal you've had one bite out of. Etc. I think the fact that the 2nd hand value is a big number has people confused, it's still not comparable.

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.

[Mike.Gayner]

if they are really playing that game then my best move is to take them to the district court, get fair value out of them and then ask the court to put a punitive fine on them to prevent them doing it to other people, as I think there will be other people around with a sour taste in their mouths and I don't just want it to be fair for me, rather fair for everyone.

Have fun with that - let's see what the court has to say when you tell them your second hand bike has the same market value as a new one.

Look, you even said in your original post, market value has to be the price a willing buyer would pay given all the facts. No willing buyer would give you a new bike price for your second hand bike. No insurance company in the world will agree that a 4 month old bike is worth the same as a new one.

Shit happens mate, but everyone knows new vehicles depreciate fast.

[Jantar]

....
Repair bill is $13,000
So ask for $13,000. Or ask them to replace the bike with one of the same age and mileage.

[tigertim20]

Insurance companies will try anything to pay as little as they can.
Given that its only 4 months old, I would give them 3 options:
1) Pay you what you paid for the bike new, plus the cost of replacing your damaged gear
2) ive you a brand new bike exactly the same off the shop floor, along with new gear to replace that which was damaged
3) see ya in court.

If your bike was say, a year old, and / or had 10k on the clock, I would accept that a payout should be less, but there isnt really any hard and fast rule with insurance companies, other than the acknowledgement that they will lowball you, and you either accept or negotiate.

best of luck!

[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.

[pete376403]

I don't think you can use "insurance companies" and "moral obligation" in the same statement.

[swbarnett]

I don't think you can use "insurance companies" and "moral obligation" in the same statement.
Agreed. I think this sums the whole issue - corporate greed.

[quickbuck]

You should run an engine in reasonably hard, not nanna it around.

A bit of a moot point now.....
But yeah, thrash it in and it makes more power earlier in it's life, but won't last as long....

[Mike.Gayner]

The correct way to run in a bike is exactly as laid out in the owners manual. The engineers the designed and built the bike have a lot more useful wisdom than random internet people who read something somewhere that one time.

[russd7]

but 1500kms in four months of owning a new bike, shit when i bought my bike new it was over due for first service after first trip, he shoulda been riding the damned thing :msn-wink:

[ldcroberts]

but 1500kms in four months of owning a new bike, shit when i bought my bike new it was over due for first service after first trip, he shoulda been riding the damned thing :msn-wink:

absolutely, if I was to buy it again, I'd get one already run-in even if it was the same price as brand new or not much more (as long as it was genuinely run in correctly). 60kph top speed keeps you fairly close to home really

[russd7]

i do agree, if the insurance company can find another bike of similar age and kms for the price they are offering then get them to purchase it otherwise they have no idea on the fair market value and should replace with new. and don't forget to hit them for your gear as well, a helmet should never be worn again after a crash regardless of whether you think it is ok, they are a one crash item and it has done its job, there may be hairline cracks that you cannot see which will compromise its ability to correctly do its job a second time

[pzkpfw]

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.

So should he say he'd have been "willing" to sell for $2 million?

The law/policy/common-sense is based on both the buyer and the seller, agreeing on a sale. I can see your point, that he'd have not sold his bike (unless under duress) for $9k, but in the end some kind of outcome is needed, so someone has to decide what's reasonable, for reasonable people to reasonably agree on. Not what one person claims. (Or should the insurance company claim that they'd found a buyer who'd have been willing to pay a buck-fifty for the bike?).


Insurance sucks. My own bike is not far from new condition, and flip all kilometers, relative to its age. But because it's a 2006 the insurance company has it valued at $4,000 or so. No way I'd be able to buy a bike in as good condition as it, for that money. I'm at the stage where I'm wondering if paying for full insurance is even worth it. Still, there's no way I'd be without insurance of some kind.

Crap happens. Insurance just doesn't take all the stink off.

[swbarnett]

Insurance sucks. My own bike is not far from new condition, and flip all kilometers, relative to its age. But because it's a 2006 the insurance company has it valued at $4,000 or so. No way I'd be able to buy a bike in as good condition as it, for that money.
Then you need to get your evidence together and challenge the valuation. Don't just bend over.

[ldcroberts]

i do agree, if the insurance company can find another bike of similar age and kms for the price they are offering then get them to purchase it otherwise they have no idea on the fair market value and should replace with new. and don't forget to hit them for your gear as well, a helmet should never be worn again after a crash regardless of whether you think it is ok, they are a one crash item and it has done its job, there may be hairline cracks that you cannot see which will compromise its ability to correctly do its job a second time

Well with the helmet, they are refunding in full (it was only 1 week old at time of accident - I shudder to think what they would pay for it if it was 4 months old as well - they would probably say it had a market value of $0 to a potential buyer and pay nothing if they used the same logic)

[Gremlin]

Then you need to get your evidence together and challenge the valuation. Don't just bend over.
Get a shop to provide a written evaluation, ask insurance to raise the value, provide valuation. Doubt they'd have a problem with it, as they'd charge you more for the higher value anyway.

Easy enough... then the shit fight comes if you need to claim :sunny:

[James Deuce]

At least 2k less than you think it is worth. Shop valuations for 2nd hand bikes are valueless. They're the sort of people who expect $6k for 20 year-old bikes with square wheel bearings, rotted exhaust systems and "lubrication required" surfaces with a faint film of the original factory grease. They have a conflict of interest when providing valuations because they are the ones trying to keep the price of 2nd bikes phenomenally high and will trade in something that would comfortably sell privately for $8k for $2k and then resell for $10k without providing any extra value whatsoever.

[ldcroberts]

Ok I've sent them a letter (removed companies name for privacy reasons), will see how it goes:

Hi,

I'm concerned that my vehicle valuation wasn't done fairly as the amount is lower than I consider a reasonable person would sell an equivalent bike for if they had no pressure to sell.

I have researched and under international law the amount is supposed to reflect the highest price that a willing seller could sell to a willing buyer for given that both parties know everything about the bike.

I have spoken to [Registered Valuer] and they have said their process is to look at what similar bikes get sold for historically on the 2nd hand market and base their valuation on that.

I have spoken to Motor Vehicle dealers who use the same process, and they have said that the the only people who sell bikes after 4 months are people that knowingly accept a loss as they have to go overseas or otherwise are pushed into selling.

So my concern is that the dollar value they are coming up with is based on "unwilling" sellers and buyers who have limited information about the history of the bike (how it was run in, etc) - so the sellers are pushed into accepting less and the buyers are reluctant to offer more due to the uncertainties (has it been thrashed, etc). This dollar value is "lower" than a "willing" seller would sell for and also lower than a willing buyer would pay if he knew more about the bike.

To test this theory I contacted other bike owners and asked them how much they would be willing to sell a bike for after 4 months of low use, and everyone said the original purchase price - nobody was willing to sell for $1500 less than they had invested in the bike after such a short period of time had elapsed.

Looking at the insurance market this is also backed up as these days people place a value on having a policy that replaces a less than 12 month old vehicle with brand new - this is because the owners consider it new for the first year and expect a replacement, so they insist on insurance cover that meets this (reasonable) expectation.

So let me get to the point, if the valuation wasn't done fairly, who is at fault? [Registered Valuer] says that his process is transparent - you ask for market value, he works out resale value which in his eyes is the same thing, and you and him are happy and the consumer loses out.
My concern is that as this is a lower value than fair market value (as explained above), it favours your business to go along with it - so you may not be willing to correct his understanding that he should be looking at a "willing seller matched to a willing fully educated buyer" amounts. In fact you may not even ask him to provide this directly.

So I have a question - do you require [Registered Valuer] to provide you with fair market value as a "willing" seller would agree with a "willing" and clued-in buyer? What does the wording in your contract with them state?

I would like to know as this issue affects not just me, but numerous people involved in similar accidents, and I'd like to seek some discussion so that I can work towards correcting this system to make it fair for everyone.

I would appreciate it if a team leader at [Insurance Company] could please call me and discuss this.

For further reference, I would consider that seeing as I spent around $10,500 on purchasing the bike and getting it on the road and servicing it, that after 4 months I would expect a fair price that I would agree to sell it at to be around $10,000 allowing for wear and tear and usage of the ORC. In support of this I would like to add the additional information that I rode the bike in carefully as per manufacturers instructions - and that this was a difficult task that most reasonable people would consider added value to the bike - and in fact may have made the bike worth even more than the brand new 0km price to some people who would not have the time to devote to running it in and if presented with the option of a carefully run in bike for the same price as brand new would opt for that (I can supply references from other people who agree this point). So my belief is that a buyer who knew all of this about the bike would consider $10k to be a bargain for the bike in question. Certainly I've made enquiries about purchasing a pre-run in bike and I've been quoted $11k or more for this for exactly the same make and model as mine, with exactly the same kms etc.

[ldcroberts]

On a related note, are there any licensed motorvehicle dealers out there who would be prepared to estimate the highest "fair" market value - i.e. in the scenario where the seller is willing and happy and the buyer is fully informed - for the Burnt Orange Ninja 300 SE ABS 2014 with 1700kms on the clock and a late Nov 2013 first registration - that most reasonable owners would agree was fair for selling if they didn't have to sell. (i.e. not what will it fetch on the market if you must sell, what would you realistically agree to sell it for if everything was fair - assuming the bike is in perfect condition and used carefully - i.e. just driven between dealerships still for sale brand new).

[Mike.Gayner]

If you want to sound more informed you should stop making references to international law. You don't seem to understand what international law is, and you seem to think there's some sort of international book of statutes and an overriding global court. International law is a nebulous web of ratified and unratified treaties and agreements that generally deals with national interests and agreements. No insurance company and certainly no NZ court gives a shit what "international law" you claim to have researched.

edit: To be clear, you appear to be under the impression that "international law" is somehow supreme to our domestic legal framework. The opposite is true - "international law" is subordinate to the statutes and case law of sovereign nations.


On a related note, are there any licensed motorvehicle dealers out there who would be prepared to estimate the highest "fair" market value - i.e. in the scenario where the seller is willing and happy and the buyer is fully informed - for the Burnt Orange Ninja 300 SE ABS 2014 with 1700kms on the clock and a late Nov 2013 first registration - that most reasonable owners would agree was fair for selling if they didn't have to sell. (i.e. not what will it fetch on the market if you must sell, what would you realistically agree to sell it for if everything was fair - assuming the bike is in perfect condition and used carefully - i.e. just driven between dealerships still for sale brand new).

No dealer in their right mind is going to tell you your used vehicle is worth the same as a new one they're trying to sell. BTW your concept of a "fair" sale seems to be one where the seller dictates a price and some fictional buyer accepts it (a buyer who, mysteriously, doesn't give any credence to the fact that it's second hand).

[ldcroberts]

well that's how the market works. If there aren't any for sale (which there aren't), then you have to approach someone and offer enough that they'll accept.

Show me people that will accept the "guess" at market value of 9k and I'll accept and look to buy it off them.

If they all say no they want more, then the market value is higher. That's high school economics.

[Mike.Gayner]

That's high school economics.

Don't leave school, kids.

[discotex]

To test this theory I contacted other bike owners and asked them how much they would be willing to sell a bike for after 4 months of low use, and everyone said the original purchase price - nobody was willing to sell for $1500 less than they had invested in the bike after such a short period of time had elapsed.

Plenty of people thought it was a fair offer.... You trying to bullshit them is an amateur move.


Certainly I've made enquiries about purchasing a pre-run in bike and I've been quoted $11k or more for this for exactly the same make and model as mine, with exactly the same kms etc.

You'll be wanting some written quotes to back that up... I'm sure these guys have heard of Trademe...

$9890 for a brand spanker. I'm sure a good negotiator could get it for $9k cash http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-718297640.htm

ORC is not something you can ask for as it is basically plates (which you never actually legally own) and rego which gets used up in the first 3 months... If the bike is written off with rego outstanding you could ask NZTA if they will pro-rata refund.. Expecting to get servicing costs is laughable and even mentioning it means they now know you have no clue.

$9k cash in the hand is a *very* fair offer. Frankly I'm amazed they didn't lowball at $7-8 given you're an unsinured party. Perhaps you should tell us who they are as they're clearly a great company for settling claims with.

Then there's this pearl that just makes you look like a complete cock.



Looking at the insurance market this is also backed up as these days people place a value on having a policy that replaces a less than 12 month old vehicle with brand new - this is because the owners consider it new for the first year and expect a replacement, so they insist on insurance cover that meets this (reasonable) expectation.

These people expect a replacement BECAUSE THEY PAY FOR FULL ACCIDENT COVER and know it's in their policy :weird:

You know what... If you'd insured your bike you'd have got a new one by now too.. But you didn't, so you won't.

If you deduct the ~$1k of insurance you've saved by not paying for full cover then you're doing great with a $9k payout. Shut the fuck up, stop being a baby, and take it :done:

[FJRider]

If they all say no they want more, then the market value is higher. That's high school economics.

You went to the wrong school then ... <_<

Market value is not what you want/expect ... it's what people are prepared (and willing) to PAY .... :doh:

NOT ... what you will accept/demand .... :shutup:

Greedy people will always lose. Only the amounts will vary .... :killingme

[ldcroberts]

Plenty of people thought it was a fair offer.... You trying to bullshit them is an amateur move.

Nobody thought it was a fair offer to make them part with their bike, some people thought it was about right for an insurance company to offer - perhaps think about the difference.


ORC is not something you can ask for as it is basically plates (which you never actually legally own) and rego which gets used up in the first 3 months... If the bike is written off with rego outstanding you could ask NZTA if they will pro-rata refund.. Expecting to get servicing costs is laughable and even mentioning it means they now know you have no clue.

insurance companies becomes owner when it is written off, they get the plates and the refund if any. I could perhaps rightly go and take out the oil as personal property if they don't pay for this, this will affect their salvage value on the bike I suppose


These people expect a replacement BECAUSE THEY PAY FOR FULL ACCIDENT COVER and know it's in their policy :weird:

actually they want it in their policy because they don't want to be in a position where they feel they are losing money (which is my situation).



If you deduct the ~$1k of insurance you've saved by not paying for full cover then you're doing great with a $9k payout. Shut the fuck up, stop being a baby, and take it :done:

I had it fully insured right up to a week before the accident with full cover, then my policy came up for review and I changed to 3rd party to save $400 per year. I only saved 1 week off full cover (F All)

[ldcroberts]

You went to the wrong school then ... <_<

Market value is not what you want/expect ... it's what people are prepared (and willing) to PAY .... :doh:

NOT ... what you will accept/demand .... :shutup:



If I want to replace it then I have to PAY what other people will ACCEPT. Market value at work - there aren't any for sale at 9k, so therefore I would have to pay more to get one, therefore the market value is higher. The market value is the price point where a realistic sale could take place.

show me that bike for 9k On road with low kms and I'll shut up.

[FJRider]

well that's how the market works. If there aren't any for sale (which there aren't), then you have to approach someone and offer enough that they'll accept.

Show me people that will accept the "guess" at market value of 9k and I'll accept and look to buy it off them.

If they all say no they want more, then the market value is higher. That's high school economics.

Here's how the market really works ...

You have an item for sale. You mention how much you want for that item. If the "Market Value" is higher that what you've asked .. expect a lot of interest. If the "Market Value" is lower than asked price ... you will be ignored. :doh:

If no similar items are for sale ... there are two possibilities why. :corn:

1. Owners are happy with what they have and don't want to sell. :love:

2. Owners want to "Trade Up" to get their next "Item" as they know resale value/expectancy is low. :facepalm:

Reality is a bitch kid ... :shifty:

[FJRider]

If I want to replace it then I have to PAY what other people will ACCEPT. Market value at work - there aren't any for sale at 9k, so therefore I would have to pay more to get one, therefore the market value is higher. The market value is the price point where a realistic sale could take place.

show me that bike for 9k On road with low kms and I'll shut up.

As YOU said ... there are NOT any for sale. Therefore NO "Market Value" can be known. The best you can do is get a written statement from a few motorcycle dealers testifying to expected value of the motorcycle you HAD ... should it have been offered for sale.

What YOU would expect to pay(or be paid) is not "Market Vale" ... merely YOUR guess ...

The 300 Ninja's go well ... but they're not that special.

Accept and move on UP ... and get your OWN insurance for the next bike you get.

Refuse ... and the photos of it nice and shiny ... you will have forever ...

ENJOY ...

[ldcroberts]

Here's how the market really works ...

You have an item for sale. You mention how much you want for that item. If the "Market Value" is higher that what you've asked .. expect a lot of interest. If the "Market Value" is lower than asked price ... you will be ignored. :doh:

If no similar items are for sale ... there are two possibilities why. :corn:

1. Owners are happy with what they have and don't want to sell. :love:

2. Owners want to "Trade Up" to get their next "Item" as they know resale value/expectancy is low. :facepalm:

Reality is a bitch kid ... :shifty:


you're talking about how a buyers market works. There is a shortage of these for sale 2nd hand so it's a sellers market, works the opposite.

[FJRider]

you're talking about how a buyers market works. There is a shortage of these for sale 2nd hand so it's a sellers market, works the opposite.

Correct me if I'm wrong kid ... YOU are NOT selling anything .... :innocent:


You have NOTHING WORTH SELLING. <_<

Nothing being offered/available for sale does not automatically equate to a "Shortage" ... :doh:

YOU do not want to buy ... YOU want to be given ... :laugh:

The onus of proof of value (your wreck once was) is for you to do ... :bleh:

Good luck with that kid ... :sunny:

[local]

I think you have a couple of valid points, although the letter could have done with explaining those a little better and leaving some of the guff out.

My thoughts:

Their policy is to pay out for a new vehicle (for their insured) if the vehicle is less than 12 months old. This is a pretty standard clause across insurers so suggests a market practice. It also suggests that if you had insurance your company would ensure you got that, and then claim it from the other company.

You didn't do yourself any favours in claiming regarding the first service, but I think I see where you are coming from. Buying a brand new bike you are immediately 1000km away from the cost of a service. Whereas your bike was past that point, and the next service cost is 4500km(?) away. Was that what you were meaning?

Being uninsured does put you on the negotiation back foot, in that insurer to insurer dealings always rely on a level of interdependence. You have no such interdependence with whoever you are dealing with. What amuses me is that when an uninsured party is hit by an insured one, the uninsured party is always treated like crap by the insurer (in this case at least medium quality crap). What they don't do is view them as potential customers, or consider the bad publicity that may arise from the dealings - yet spend millions on ads wanking on about how they look after their customers, and why you should switch to them.

I'd be inclined to go back with a counter offer in the mid-high 9s, accepting some loss on the value of the bike but not take a 4 figure hit after 4 months. I'd lodge a disputes tribunal application if that doesn't get anywhere, tribunal referees do refer to law but also apply a level of fairness to their rulings. Bear in mind it may take a while for a hearing date though. Our litigation team at work lodge a number of disputes applications, and often the insurers cave in the day before the hearing.

[Tazz]

Fark that noise. Don't bend over and get shafted like the masses just because they're used to it. If you've got the time and know how, fight for fairness.

If not the lawyer way still isn't a bad idea and you even got a recommendation for someone that specializes in this. Any good one will tell you straight up (and actually have knowledge on it rather than most on Kiwibiker, exhibit A further above coming from someone who doesn't even know how to check his tyre pressure correctly) what is what. Who knows, you might get the same advice as you have had from a few people on here, but at least you'll know it's good advice (well hopefully!) :niceone: You will have to pay fees through and they have come down in price if you wish to replace.

Comprehensively insured yourself or not, someone farked up your stuff and THEY are insured to sort you out. Why should you be left out of pocket for their mess. While it is the way of the would to take a hit on these things sometimes if you think you can do better and have time to fight it go nuts because in an ideal world this is how it would be done, we're just used to getting shafted so other can make money off us.

When it is all said and done though you are not in as bad position as you could be which is something that should help you rest a little easier.

That's my angry 'coffee withdrawal fueled somewhat contradictory' rant anyway to go in the retards of KB pile at your leisure =)

[FJRider]

and THEY are insured to sort you out.

They are insured ... HE WASN'T. They have insurance to sort their own shit out dipstick.

[DR650gary]

As an uninsured third party (not a smart place to be) you are only entitled to indemnity value which is cost price less depreciation. That is not exactly market value but that is a term that is often used to explain what is being offered. If you believe there is no depreciation on a vehicle the moment it is taken out the door you are being naive.

This listing is for a new bike but last years model

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-581748978.htm

and this seems similar to yours

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-721513470.htm

so I would take the $9K and go buy one of them. Perhaps this time you may be wise enough to insure it so if you are unlucky enough to hit some other uninsured person they may be able to chase you around a bit.

Cheers

[sil3nt]

How do you not have insurance on a brand new $10k bike?

[ldcroberts]

It also suggests that if you had insurance your company would ensure you got that, and then claim it from the other company.

Yes, unfortunately that's not how it works, the insurance companies get the reduced market value off each other then top it up for their customers. Probably averages out so they don't care anyway between them.



You didn't do yourself any favours in claiming regarding the first service, but I think I see where you are coming from. Buying a brand new bike you are immediately 1000km away from the cost of a service. Whereas your bike was past that point, and the next service cost is 4500km(?) away. Was that what you were meaning?

well yes, it's an expected cost, and I purchased oil etc, which was a modification to the bike to improve it, which had an expected life which was cut short. It's value was lost with the bike. The service was just over a month before the accident. If I hadn't serviced the bike it's resale value would be arguably lower.



Being uninsured does put you on the negotiation back foot, in that insurer to insurer dealings always rely on a level of interdependence. You have no such interdependence with whoever you are dealing with. What amuses me is that when an uninsured party is hit by an insured one, the uninsured party is always treated like crap by the insurer (in this case at least medium quality crap). What they don't do is view them as potential customers, or consider the bad publicity that may arise from the dealings - yet spend millions on ads wanking on about how they look after their customers, and why you should switch to them.

This is brilliant insight, there seems to be a fair bit of public sentiment where people have been given less than they feel they deserve for things. I feel a bit sorry for the insurance company employees too - it can hardly be something to bring up at parties talking about how you processed someones claim and saved the company some $$ - I'm sure they only want what is fair too at the end of the day.



I'd be inclined to go back with a counter offer in the mid-high 9s, accepting some loss on the value of the bike but not take a 4 figure hit after 4 months. I'd lodge a disputes tribunal application if that doesn't get anywhere, tribunal referees do refer to law but also apply a level of fairness to their rulings. Bear in mind it may take a while for a hearing date though. Our litigation team at work lodge a number of disputes applications, and often the insurers cave in the day before the hearing.

They have come back with the wording from their processes which is:

----
Market Value
The reasonable cost to buy, immediately before the loss and on the retail market, a
vehicle of comparable:
• year,
• make, model and specification (including fitted equipment covered by this policy),
• mileage,
• general condition,
as the motorcycle that was damaged.
----

As there are actually no bikes for sale to refer to, I am going back to them with the argument that the reasonable cost to buy is what someone will actually sell for - so we would have to find someone who has a comparable bike and see what they would accept - maybe get a written statement from 2 owners that they would actually sell their bike if offered X amount, and then average them. (I find someone, they find someone). Then when they pay me I can buy that persons bike for that price (if I want to)

It's quite the reverse of their system, however I think it's applicable and fair in this situation - fairer than guessing and talking about if someone was forced to sell what a suspicious buyer would pay anyway.

[local]

This listing is for a new bike but last years model

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-581748978.htm

and this seems similar to yours

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-721513470.htm


Cheers

Neither of those seem to be ABS models, which judging by those prices is commanding a $1000+ premium...

[ldcroberts]

Neither of those seem to be ABS models, which judging by those prices is commanding a $1000+ premium...

believe me, ABS is worth the extra $1000, i had to brake hard and hit the car head on, and ended up standing up on the road with only a sprained wrist and groin - not sliding under the car and not screeching on the road with ineffective braking. I've dropped non-ABS bikes before just trying to slow down too fast on the front brake.

[Oakie]

believe me, ABS is worth the extra $1000, i had to brake hard and hit the car head on, and ended up standing up on the road with only a sprained wrist and groin - not sliding under the car and not screeching on the road with ineffective braking. I've dropped non-ABS bikes before just trying to slow down too fast on the front brake.

A sprained groin???!!! :shit::shit: Better rub some anti-inflammatory into that straight away ... actually ... hang on a minute ...

[FJRider]

Neither of those seem to be ABS models, which judging by those prices is commanding a $1000+ premium...

The second link was a 2014 model WITH ABS, $8599 + ORC ...and has only 1000 km's on the clock. They mentioned the "Special" model at less than ten grand ....

[discotex]

Nobody thought it was a fair offer to make them part with their bike, some people thought it was about right for an insurance company to offer - perhaps think about the difference.


Look no-one is going to say it's fair that some fucker crashed into you and wrote off your bike. That sucks. Unfortunately. That has no bearing on the definition of market value.

I'm assuming you are going off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_value

"the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion."

In order to apply that definition you need to understand that the seller is a hypothetical seller, not you. It represents any hypothetical seller that just happened to want to sell their bike for any reason. Perhaps they just wanted a different model.. Perhaps they upgraded to another bike.. Perhaps they want a flash coffee machine instead. Whatever.. The key is the hypothetical person is not acting under duress. Same deal with the hypothetical buyer.

For the purposes of estimating the market value your personal situation isn't relevant. Sorry, that's how it is.

So consider:

Person A has a 4 month old Ninja 300 with ABS and decides to get a new bike so will hope to sell sell privately for the best the market will offer
Person B is a new biker and wants a Ninja 300 with ABS

Person A does want to sell their bike so they will meet the market but won't accept low-ball offers - this is being prudent.
Person B wants a fair deal so will not buy Person A's bike for a RRP $9899 if the exact same model is available new in a dealer and they know they can get probably get a better deal - again bring prudent.

Given the low km and age, the best price for guides for both Person A and Person B would be the IRD depreciation schedule (as I posted for your earlier), or what a dealer would want ex-demo (normally 5-10% off RRP.. perhaps ask dealer for an ex-demo quote).

Following that interpretation, $9k is totally fair and defensible in court. Also keep in mind what you paid has no bearing on market value either. Whether you got a good deal or a got ripped isn't relevant as you are not the hypothetical Person A.



insurance companies becomes owner when it is written off, they get the plates and the refund if any. I could perhaps rightly go and take out the oil as personal property if they don't pay for this, this will affect their salvage value on the bike I suppose


I'm trying to help you here.. Take the advice unless you know what you're talking about.

The registration and ownership are separate things. The registration is cancelled, the ownership of the metal will be transferred to the insurance company to sell as a wreck or destroy.

You are entitled to a refund even if the insurance company file the cancellation of registration. Probably will have to write to NZTA though. See this http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/74/vehicle-registration-cancellation.html



actually they want it in their policy because they don't want to be in a position where they feel they are losing money (which is my situation).


Two different issues.. They expect a new vehicle because it's in the policy. Yes they want it in the policy to avoid this situation. That's why they are paying for full insurance (not your situation). However many policies don't have this clause and may be cheaper as a result. Whatever... It is specific to the policy of the insured, not to the reparation of the third party.

In the case that you still had full insurance it's quite likely that your insurer would be given the fair market value of $9k and they would have sucked up the difference to get you a new bike under the replacement as new clause (as you should be doing).

I'm hoping you're starting to get it now...



I had it fully insured right up to a week before the accident with full cover, then my policy came up for review and I changed to 3rd party to save $400 per year. I only saved 1 week off full cover (F All)

Well that totally sucks for you and honestly I do feel for you. Nothing sucks more than making a (bad) decision and having to deal with the consequences. I almost did the same thing last time I renewed because I don't do many road km these days - mostly do track days. Figured I'd just take the risk on 3rd party for the days I do commute or do weekend rides. But then I realised I'd be gutted if I wrote my bike off (or worse someone else did). Not to mention tempting fate!

[sil3nt]

The second link was a 2014 model WITH ABS, $8599 + ORC ...and has only 1000 km's on the clock. They mentioned the "Special" model at less than ten grand ....His bike was $9899.00 + ORC which is stated in this thread and on that link. Not hard to understand.

[russd7]

The second link was a 2014 model WITH ABS, $8599 + ORC ...and has only 1000 km's on the clock. They mentioned the "Special" model at less than ten grand ....

no the ABS model is $9899.00 plus ORC that add had three different models listed

[ldcroberts]

Look no-one is going to say it's fair that some fucker crashed into you and wrote off your bike. That sucks. Unfortunately. That has no bearing on the definition of market value.

I'm assuming you are going off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_value

"the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion."

In order to apply that definition you need to understand that the seller is a hypothetical seller, not you. It represents any hypothetical seller that just happened to want to sell their bike for any reason. Perhaps they just wanted a different model.. Perhaps they upgraded to another bike.. Perhaps they want a flash coffee machine instead. Whatever.. The key is the hypothetical person is not acting under duress. Same deal with the hypothetical buyer.

So consider:

Person A has a 4 month old Ninja 300 with ABS and decides to get a new bike so will hope to sell sell privately for the best the market will offer
Person B is a new biker and wants a Ninja 300 with ABS

Person A does want to sell their bike so they will meet the market but won't accept low-ball offers - this is being prudent.
Person B wants a fair deal so will not buy Person A's bike for a RRP $9899 if the exact same model is available new in a dealer and they know they can get probably get a better deal - again bring prudent.

Given the low km and age, the best price for guides for both Person A and Person B would be the IRD depreciation schedule (as I posted for your earlier), or what a dealer would want ex-demo (normally 5-10% off RRP.. perhaps ask dealer for an ex-demo quote).

Following that interpretation, $9k is totally fair and defensible in court. Also keep in mind what you paid has no bearing on market value either. Whether you got a good deal or a got ripped isn't relevant as you are not the hypothetical Person A.

You are selling a bike to someone else without the hidden expenses of ORC and 1st service - which are another $640 I think I paid - sure some of this is the $45 per month rego and I used 4 months of that so $200. But adding the remaining $440 to the $890 they are shaving off, its $1330 - getting up there for depreciation - now you are talking 10-15% rather than 5%.

IRD allow you to claim 31cents a kilometer for business use - that covers depreciation, wear and tear, servicing, petrol, tires, insurance, everything. For the 1700km I travelled, I could claim back $530 as legitimate expenses - at least $150 of this goes straight into the petrol tank as I filled up for $30 every 300km.

So in IRD's eyes, the depreciation/wear/tear on the bike is somewhere around $300 over the 4 month period if you calculate it based on that mechanism.


I'd rather it was based on reality rather than people guessing what someone would sell/buy at. Insurance guys should approach actual owners and say "hey we got a guy here needs a replacement bike, anyone got one same as he had they are willing to sell? - around 1700km on it - yeah? how much do you want for it - we're going to go with the lowest offer of two what's your lowest price? cheers we'll get back to you"

In that scenario you have two actual willing sellers you can average between, a value paid out for a bike you can actually go and buy, and it would be hard to argue it wasn't fair.

What they instead do is say "oh nah people wouldn't sell for that unless they really had too, but if one turns up you might get lucky - here's enough just to cover that if it does happen - good luck."



You are entitled to a refund even if the insurance company file the cancellation of registration.

I will look into this for sure, not sure if they'll let me backdate it to the date of the accident (over a month ago now - took a while for the insurance cogs to turn to this point)

[discotex]

You are selling a bike to someone else without the hidden expenses of ORC and 1st service - which are another $640 I think I paid - sure some of this is the $45 per month rego and I used 4 months of that so $200. But adding the remaining $440 to the $890 they are shaving off, its $1330 - getting up there for depreciation - now you are talking 10-15% rather than 5%.


Look I know you want it to be like that but it isn't. Those are not capital expenses and don't count to the value of the asset. It's like trying to claim the new owner is getting the use of all that petrol you put in it. I've spent thousands service my CBR over the last 6 years.. Obviously you can see none of that has increased the value.



IRD allow you to claim 31cents a kilometer for business use - that covers depreciation, wear and tear, servicing, petrol, tires, insurance, everything. For the 1700km I travelled, I could claim back $530 as legitimate expenses - at least $150 of this goes straight into the petrol tank as I filled up for $30 every 300km.

So in IRD's eyes, the depreciation/wear/tear on the bike is somewhere around $300 over the 4 month period if you calculate it based on that mechanism.


No, the depreciation of the asset using diminishing value (which any sane accountant would) is at 30% per year for motorcycles. Go look it up yourself at https://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/depreciation/calculator-depreciation-rate-finder.html

Assuming you paid RRP of $9899 + plates/first rego of $274 = $10173 - you cannot include any other portion of ORC, servicing, or consumables as part of the asset. Of course you'll need your invoice to back up anything taking that angle.

That means after year 1 your bike is worth $7122 (a drop of $3051). Pro-rating 4 our of 12 months would be $1017 in lost value. Take that of the initial price and you have $9156. Co-incidentally that is a 10% drop which a 1400km demo bike would be fairly priced at...

The IRD per km rate is for the business use of a private vehicle. It is not used for calculating the book value of an asset so not use here.



I'd rather it was based on reality rather than people guessing what someone would sell/buy at. Insurance guys should approach actual owners and say "hey we got a guy here needs a replacement bike, anyone got one same as he had they are willing to sell? - around 1700km on it - yeah? how much do you want for it - we're going to go with the lowest offer of two what's your lowest price? cheers we'll get back to you"

In that scenario you have two actual willing sellers you can average between, a value paid out for a bike you can actually go and buy, and it would be hard to argue it wasn't fair.

What they instead do is say "oh nah people wouldn't sell for that unless they really had too, but if one turns up you might get lucky - here's enough just to cover that if it does happen - good luck."


Look that might be nice but it's not how it works. Imagine if they had to do that for every single claim - billions of dollars a year. It's just not possible.

The onus is on you to prove their model is wrong. If they were lowballing you at $7k you could easily push them to $9k with the info I've given you. Going above that is like pushing a metric ton of shit up hill.

Seriously the best you can do is say...

"In lieu of an established second hand market for near new vehicles I have determined the value of my loss based on the standard IRD diminishing value depreciation rate of 30% for motorcycles. Including the capital cost of registration this equates to $9156. I am prepared to settle for this amount."

They will probably throw you a bone to shut you up :) Push for more than they'll stonewall you and see if you have the gumption to file for Disputes Tribunal.

Seriously... Print out my advice and take it to Citizens Advice and see what they think...

[ldcroberts]

well in their own words they say they pay "the reasonable cost to buy a comparable vehicle."

The closest available comparable vehicle is a brand new one, so the cost is the new price isn't it.

If they really meant they "pay the estimated cost of buying an imaginary vehicle" then why didn't they say that? that's all they are offering after all. I expect they didn't say that because they can't legally stand behind it.

[skippa1]

well in their own words they say they pay "the reasonable cost to buy a comparable vehicle."

The closest available comparable vehicle is a brand new one, so the cost is the new price isn't it.

If they really meant they "pay the estimated cost of buying an imaginary vehicle" then why didn't they say that? that's all they are offering after all. I expect they didn't say that because they can't legally stand behind it.
You are clutching at straws. Discotex is spot on. It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, real bad luck re the insurance decision but a chain of events sees you in this position.
if you search on the forum you will find several threads by people in similar circumstance that talk about their perceived "rights" or what they believe they are entitled to from insurance companies, vs what reality is.

[Jantar]

You do realise that you do not have to deal with the other driver's insurance company at all. As an uninsured party you can simply claim against the other driver and let him deal with his insurance company. That way your claim is for the lesser of the actual cost of repairs ($13,000) or top replace your motorcycle with one of comparable age, mileage and condition.

You would probably need legal assistance, and the cost of that is likely to be more than the difference in the value that you are being offered.

[Katiepie]

My insurer paid me out "market value" of my bike when I wrote it off - It ended up being $800 more then what I had paid through a dealership, so my excess was covered as well. Score for me.

[MarkH]

In the OPs situation I would do this:
Get 3 quotes for a satisfactory replacement of the bike.
Send them to the insurance company and ask them to pay the lowest one.
If they aren't happy with that then ask them to provide a quote for a satisfactory replacement that you can buy and have them pay enough for you to buy it.

Just tell them that you are happy if they pay enough for you to buy a replacement bike & helmet that are no older and in no worse condition than what you had before the crash.

Who gives a shit what you could have sold the bike for, you weren't attempting to sell it.
Replacement value is what you want, what does it cost to replace what you had?

[discotex]

You do realise that you do not have to deal with the other driver's insurance company at all. As an uninsured party you can simply claim against the other driver and let him deal with his insurance company. That way your claim is for the lesser of the actual cost of repairs ($13,000) or top replace your motorcycle with one of comparable age, mileage and condition.

You would probably need legal assistance, and the cost of that is likely to be more than the difference in the value that you are being offered.

$9156 a fair cost to replace with a motorcycle of compatible age, mileage and condition. OP has been offered $9000.

Hardly worth taking it global over $156... That's about 12 minutes of a decent lawyers time and they'll just tell them what I have. That's why I suggested they go to Citizens Advice first.

[ldcroberts]

$9156 a fair cost to replace with a motorcycle of compatible age, mileage and condition. OP has been offered $9000.


It's not a fair cost as I can't replace it with a comparable motorbike as everyone who has that same motorbike wants more for it

[discotex]

I expect they didn't say that because they can't legally stand behind it.

LOL yeah right. Let us know how you get on at Disputes Tribunal. Should be a laugh.

[skippa1]

It's not a fair cost as I can't replace it with a comparable motorbike as everyone who has that same motorbike wants more for it
Without dredging through to see exactly what yours was, isn't this it?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-718072120.htm
ahh no ABS...

[skippa1]

It's not a fair cost as I can't replace it with a comparable motorbike as everyone who has that same motorbike wants more for it
It's not up to the insurance company to make sure there are bikes that are comparable on the market for you to buy.

[discotex]

It's not a fair cost as I can't replace it with a comparable motorbike as everyone who has that same motorbike wants more for it

Let me spell it out for you.. As you're either trolling or being wilfully stupid about this.

They (actually the other driver but the insurer is acting on their behalf) legally must reimburse the financial value of your loss, that does not mean they have to replace with the exact same bike.

Imagine they had run over the Mona Lisa. Obviously there isn't another one so by your logic they would owe you $0.

Instead they calculate the fair market value of the loss and pay cash. It's then up to you to decide to do what you want with the cash.

You can wait forever for the same km bike to turn up on Trademe, or you can top it up and get a brand new one. Or just out the money in the bank.

In the Mona Lisa example, the insurer and insured could wildly vary on the value because of lack of sales, and art values are not linear or predictable... The same could be the case for a custom chopper or classic car not a big standard learner bike.

Your bike was worth $9156 at the time of the accident. If written off that is the financial loss you suffered. That is all you are owed. It's that simple.

[ldcroberts]

It's not up to the insurance company to make sure there are bikes that are comparable on the market for you to buy.

the amount that it would obviously take for me to replace it with a comparable bike is higher than they are offering, looking at the only actual bikes that are available in the "market". They don't have to find one exactly the same, and I don't have to buy it when they give me the money, but it has to be fair based on that

[ldcroberts]

They (actually the other driver but the insurer is acting on their behalf) legally must reimburse the financial value of your loss, that does not mean they have to replace with the exact same bike.

Imagine they had run over the Mona Lisa...


If you want to talk about imaginary scenarios, heres an alternative - you drive your new bike off the yard and when you get to the footpath a guy with a gun stops you and forces you to sell it to his mate at the now depreciated value.

You then go to the cops and say you were robbed. They then say "um nope you got fair value for your bike - bugger off".

Is that about where you are coming from with this argument?

I know you'll come back with same day = less depreciation based on 1 year at 30% averaging - but that analogy is also flawed as some people drive 100,000kms in a year and other don't ride at all and you would lump them all in the same depreciation rate, so it's not applicable.

[Mike.Gayner]

ldcroberts you need to fucking grow up. This thread has gone ridiculous. Life's going to throw shit at you - in this case, you've learned the hard way why it pays to be insured. Fucking accept the $9k, its more than generous all things considered.

[skippa1]

ldcroberts you need to fucking grow up. This thread has gone ridiculous. Life's going to throw shit at you - in this case, you've learned the hard way why it pays to be insured. Fucking accept the $9k, its more than generous all things considered.
Yep.....you took the risk and lost. Stop bleating.

[discotex]

Is that about where you are coming from with this argument?


Not even slightly :wacko:



I know you'll come back with same day = less depreciation based on 1 year at 30% averaging - but that analogy is also flawed as some people drive 100,000kms in a year and other don't ride at all and you would lump them all in the same depreciation rate, so it's not applicable.


Yes it is. Ask a lawyer.

[ldcroberts]

ldcroberts you need to fucking grow up. This thread has gone ridiculous. Life's going to throw shit at you - in this case, you've learned the hard way why it pays to be insured. Fucking accept the $9k, its more than generous all things considered.

It's the insurance companies that need to grow up. They can't find exactly my bike on the market and the only ones there are ever so slightly better (lower kms) and so rather than give me the price to replace it with those, they are arguing to pay me much less based on flawed hypothesis that the estimated market price based on a disequilibrium between suspicious buyers and pressed sellers is a way to accurately assess market value.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_value and learn how it's supposed to work - some very smart people have pointed out the difference between value and price in different markets and circumstances. It's time the insurance companies paid attention as there is a social cost when they shortchange people - and it's driving more people to pay for insurance they shouldn't need to cover what someone else might do to them (like yourself).

[FJRider]

How do you not have insurance on a brand new $10k bike?

He was thinking of the $400 he would save ... :whistle:

[sil3nt]

It means he must have laid down $10k cash as you can not get finance without insurance.

[ldcroberts]

It means he must have laid down $10k cash as you can not get finance without insurance.

Sure, I'm not fighting as I need the extra $500 I might get, it's the principle and on behalf of others who may be more affected by this situation. The fight will no doubt cost a bit in court fees etc anyway. It's just about what is right not what is my best play for the $ at this point.

[FJRider]

It's the insurance companies that need to grow up ....

Insurance Companies are not there to provide a public service ... Gratis. They must be seen to make a profit for their owners and shareholders. If you buy full insurance (which you didn't) you sign the forms agreeing to their conditions. You elected to save (by your own admission) the $400 by getting only 3rd party ... and that childish decision bit you in the ass.

Far more experienced riders than yourself buy insurance ... so they wont find themselves in the position you are in.


.. and it's driving more people to pay for insurance they shouldn't need to cover what someone else might do to them (like yourself).

You seem to assume all accidents are the fault of somebody else. Had your accident been your fault .. you would be $10,000 out of pocket.

All because you tried to "save" $400 ..

[Scubbo]

man wish I had 10K to spend on a bike :scooter:

(pointless addition I know) -- enjoyed the thread btw, 9K back from insurance when you only had 3rd party sounds pretty slick to me could have walked away with nothing had they been able to prove in any way it was your fault (no WoF for example)

[ldcroberts]

You seem to assume all accidents are the fault of somebody else. Had your accident been your fault .. you would be $10,000 out of pocket.


Nah I would just get the bike straightened out and keep riding. I have 3rd party anyway. Even as smashed as it is the insurance company still reckons they'll get $4250 for it as salvage value. One option is to keep my bike and just take $5k and get it fixed but they will still insist on deregistering it so it's a pain to get it back on the road and a ballpark guess for fixing it to "rough and ready legal" state is $2-3k plus another $1k to get it back on the road if I try it that way, so the cash out is the better option - it's just supposed to be enough cash to get a comparable replacement and I'm still trying to get them to come up to that.

[ldcroberts]

See the thing is, take two bikes, both produced in the same factory on the same day, both shipped to NZ in the same container, both assembled by the same guys and put on the same shop floor.
One's still sitting there, the other has been ridden round a little bit to run it in and had the oil changed.

Bang - the ridden one gets smashed. What's it's value? the other bike (it's twin) is still sitting in the shop with $9899 + ORC on it. If you were to purchase either bike (either the run in bike pre-accident or the brand new one) and ride it for 10 years, you would end up with the same bike after 10 years - 1700km is not going to make a difference in the scheme of things. In fact if you bought the one that was run-in you could ride it unrestricted straight away which is probably a bonus. (In contrast you have to pay more to service the other bike plus it has been sitting still for quite a while which is not good for bikes.)

The idea of value based on when it was first registered for the road is fairly arbitrary - both bikes are the same everything except they don't get a number plate bolted on until it needs to go on the road (before that they use dealer plates). They are comparable bikes, one's just been ridden a bit less. Sure resale value on the ridden one might be lower if you didn't know how it had been ridden, but that's unrelated to it's value to the owner who knows how it was ridden.

[discotex]

it's just supposed to be enough cash to get a comparable replacement and I'm still trying to get them to come up to that.

If you're unlucky they will get more "independent" (lower) valuations and withdraw the $9k offer because you are being a dick about a fair offer. They'll definitely withdraw it if you file with Disputes Tribunal but that's the only way you'll get to put your argument to the test.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/disputes-tribunal

[Oscar]

Jeez, I tried to read this entire thread, but it put me to sleep.

The fact that OP was uninsured means that the argument has got nothing to do with insurance.

He suffered damage at the hands of another person (who apparently accepted that it was his fault), and is now negotiating with that person's agent (i.e. his insurer) for compensation.
There is no international law or accepted formula covering the value of the compensation, it is simply a matter of argument (and valuations form part of these discussions).
He can either accept what is offered by the other guy, or (assuming that any counter offer is rejected), he can proceed through the courts (including small claims).

[Jantar]

.... Even as smashed as it is the insurance company still reckons they'll get $4250 for it as salvage value. One option is to keep my bike and just take $5k and get it fixed but they will still insist on deregistering it so it's a pain to get it back on the road ....
Hang on a minute. The other driver's insurance company does not own your bike. You have no contract with them so its not up to them to say they will get any salvage from it. As they do not own it they cannot insist on deregistering it either.

[ldcroberts]

Hang on a minute. The other driver's insurance company does not own your bike. You have no contract with them so its not up to them to say they will get any salvage from it. As they do not own it they cannot insist on deregistering it either.

I have to sign a contract to get whatever payout they come up with tho, I actually don't know for sure but the guy I talked to on the phone about it who works for the insurance company seemed pretty sure they would write it off and deregister it no matter what option I took. He may well be mistaken of course. Even so I think I'd want at least $6-7k cash plus keep the damaged bike and it doesn't seem like they are anywhere near that. I can't get an accurate quote to straighten it in auckland - have to send it to hamilton to the experts for that, and it seems too hard really.

[discotex]

Jeez, I tried to read this entire thread, but it put me to sleep.

The fact that OP was uninsured means that the argument has got nothing to do with insurance.


It is only relevant in so far as that he argued with the insurer that his damages should be full RRP + ORC + first service, on the basis that many "full cover" policies have a 6 month "replace with new" clause. As he's uninsured that is a bogus argument.



He suffered damage at the hands of another person (who apparently accepted that it was his fault), and is now negotiating with that person's agent (i.e. his insurer) for compensation.
There is no international law or accepted formula covering the value of the compensation, it is simply a matter of argument (and valuations form part of these discussions).
He can either accept what is offered by the other guy, or (assuming that any counter offer is rejected), he can proceed through the courts (including small claims).

His argument has to have some basis that will stand up in court. "Because I want a new bike value and it's not fair wah wah" just doesn't cut it.

The other party's insurer values the loss at $9k and the OP asked if that was a fair value. Depreciation values the bike at $9156. I've also suggested the OP gets an estimate for an ex-demo model from a dealer - likely to be $9100ish for a $9899 RRP bike.

It's pretty obvious $9k is very close to a fair value but a few hundy more is probably fairer. Not the $10k he's after.

If he goes to Disputes Tribunal he'll lose, but it's his right to try it on.

[ldcroberts]

His argument has to have some basis that will stand up in court. "Because I want a new bike value and it's not fair wah wah" just doesn't cut it.


I've always stated that I paid over $10,500 for the privilege of riding the bike for 4 months (more if you count petrol i suppose), and I can't ride it any more, and that I want $10k back and can accept a $500 loss, but a $1500 loss is not fair (but without the wah wah bit - I guess that was inferred).

Fair value has to be what someone will actually sell it for willingly.

[FJRider]

I have to sign a contract to get whatever payout they come up with tho ....


So ... in the end ... you may have little choice as to what options you have.

Most likely only two options will be available ... take it or leave it.

Straightening and rebuilding it ... will leave it with little resale value ... if word gets out it was written off due to accident damage.

And you WOULD tell them ... right .. ?? Being the fair and honest person you are ... :whistle:

[Oscar]

I've always stated that I paid over $10,500 for the privilege of riding the bike for 4 months (more if you count petrol i suppose), and I can't ride it any more, and that I want $10k back and can accept a $500 loss, but a $1500 loss is not fair (but without the wah wah bit - I guess that was inferred).

Fair value has to be what someone will actually sell it for willingly.

Seems to me, fair value is a replacement bike of the same age and milage.
What you paid for it is irrelevant.

[FJRider]

I can accept a $500 loss, but a $1500 loss is not fair (but without the wah wah bit - I guess that was inferred).

But you saved $400 by not getting full insurance ... remember ...

You have already lost full use of your bike. Anything you get back (out of it) is a plus ...


Fair value has to be what someone will actually sell it for willingly.

What someone will PAY for it willingly ... actually. I would willingly sell my FJ for ten grand ... but that would not make it the fair market value for it ... (dammit)

[ldcroberts]

Seems to me, fair value is a replacement bike of the same age and milage.
What you paid for it is irrelevant.

that's true, the closest available bike same age and slightly less milage is $9899 + ORC, no other options exist to purchase today nor on the day of the accident (March 24th).

Question is will the disputes tribunal rule on the value of an actual bike you can actually buy, versus the insurance companies mythical bike that if a mythical person was pressured to sell you might be able to get for only 9k

[ldcroberts]

But you saved $400 by not getting full insurance ... remember ...

Nope that only applied for the period from March 17th to March 24th when I dropped it down from full to 3rd party. I didn't save anything believe me.




What someone will PAY for it willingly ... actually. I would willingly sell my FJ for ten grand ... but that would not make it the fair market value for it ... (dammit)

If you had a son/friend, and you bought the bike and ran it in while they were saving up for it, then he bought it off you knowing everything about the bike, where is the fair meeting point that accounts for use/wear and tear/etc. That's probably the clearest way to think about fair market value.

[discotex]

that's true, the closest available bike same age and slightly less milage is $9899 + ORC, no other options exist to purchase today nor on the day of the accident (March 24th).

Question is will the disputes tribunal rule on the value of an actual bike you can actually buy, versus the insurance companies mythical bike that if a mythical person was pressured to sell you might be able to get for only 9k

I've already told you the answer to that question. I've also told you who can confirm it for you (Citizens Advice).

You just don't want to hear it because it doesn't suit you (which is where I infer the wah wah from).

So, what are you waiting for. Tell the insurance company you don't accept their offer then file against the other driver and the insurer with Disputes Tribunal.

Please tell us all how it goes.

[discotex]

If you had a son/friend, and you bought the bike and ran it in while they were saving up for it, then he bought it off you knowing everything about the bike, where is the fair meeting point that accounts for use/wear and tear/etc. That's probably the clearest way to think about fair market value.


Ahh no.. That would totally fail the "arms length" requirement in your Wikipedia definition of market value because they are related parties.

EDIT: A better version would be where the son changed his mind so the father put it on the market after 1400km and 4 months use. The price he'd get from a random stranger is the fair value. That would be around $9k..

[FJRider]

Nope that only applied for the period from March 17th to March 24th when I dropped it down from full to 3rd party. I didn't save anything believe me.

You didn't renew it to save the cost of full insurance (your own words in this thread). Your intention WAS to save money ... it just didn't quite work out that way ... :killingme


If you had a son/friend, and you bought the bike and ran it in while they were saving up for it, then he bought it off you knowing everything about the bike,

That still makes it a used second hand bike .... sorry ...


where is the fair meeting point that accounts for use/wear and tear/etc. That's probably the clearest way to think about fair market value.

Your description of how "Market Value" is found ... has changed again ...

The figure between what YOU want and what people want (and are willing) to pay will most always differ. The fair meeting point is when they front up with the cash offer .... and you accept.

There have been plenty of bikes on Trade Me for some time ... at "market value" (using your logic) that haven't sold.

And I bet you don't know how your bike was ridden during "test rides" before you bought it ...

[skippa1]

Shit you just don't get it do you. It is totally irrelevant what is on the market. It means nothing. Likewise, what is spent on fuel and services does not add value. You crashed a second hand bike, you stupidly chose to drop full cover for 3rd party, you now want somebody to reimburse you not only for the loss, but you want them to upgrade you to what you had 12 months before the accident??!!?? Wake up, the dream is over

[ldcroberts]

Your description of how "Market Value" is found ... has changed again ...

The figure between what YOU want and what people want (and are willing) to pay will most always differ. The fair meeting point is when they front up with the cash offer .... and you accept.

There have been plenty of bikes on Trade Me for some time ... at "market value" (using your logic) that haven't sold.

And I bet you don't know how your bike was ridden during "test rides" before you bought it ...

Plenty of them have sold for that too, that's why they keep listing them. Selling like proverbial hotcakes is what one dealer told me.

True there was 4km on it by the time I got it (which occurred after I forked out the money of course - presumably to test for WOF etc)

In this situation to actually buy a replacement, I have to meet the market - i.e. come up to sellers expectations - and those are higher than what the insurance guys reckon they should be - but they are saying they are using the "market" but clearly they are using an artificial hypothesised market and not the actual market, because to buy an equivalent bike on the current actual market would take more money no matter how much anyone looks around.

There's all this talk of the phantom 2nd hand bike that should be for sale at 9k, but nobody is actually offering it, and everyone who has a brand new one wants 9899 and existing owners aren't talking - certainly nobodies jumped on this thread saying hey i've got a near new ninja I'll sell you for 9k have they.

[discotex]

Well perhaps you should tell the insurance company you are happy to wait as long as it takes until a 4 month old 1400km bike comes on the market lol

[Oscar]

Shit you just don't get it do you. It is totally irrelevant what is on the market. It means nothing. Likewise, what is spent on fuel and services does not add value. You crashed a second hand bike, you stupidly chose to drop full cover for 3rd party, you now want somebody to reimburse you not only for the loss, but you want them to upgrade you to what you had 12 months before the accident??!!?? Wake up, the dream is over

I'm thinking that if he was fully insured, he'd be having the same argument with the insurer.

[ldcroberts]

Shit you just don't get it do you. It is totally irrelevant what is on the market. It means nothing. Likewise, what is spent on fuel and services does not add value. You crashed a second hand bike, you stupidly chose to drop full cover for 3rd party, you now want somebody to reimburse you not only for the loss, but you want them to upgrade you to what you had 12 months before the accident??!!?? Wake up, the dream is over

Dude take my advice, walk into a pub, knock someones beer out of their hand onto the floor, tell them your theory about how it was second hand beer and not worth anything and they should have insurance, and take the lesson and learn from how they then educate you on how things work in the real world.

[ldcroberts]

I'm thinking that if he was fully insured, he'd be having the same argument with the insurer.

insurance companies give you a brand new bike if it's less than 12 months old, they all do it these days.

I think you are implying that I'm trying to claim for something more than I'm fairly entitled to, however that is not the case.

[skippa1]

Dude take my advice, walk into a pub, knock someones beer out of their hand onto the floor, tell them your theory about how it was second hand beer and not worth anything and they should have insurance, and take the lesson and learn from how they then educate you on how things work in the real world.
Seriously? You really really think that is some sort of analogy that fits with this situation? You really need to grow up.
I am genuinely interested in how this pans out.....

[skippa1]

insurance companies give you a brand new bike if it's less than 12 months old, they all do it these days.

I think you are implying that I'm trying to claim for something more than I'm fairly entitled to, however that is not the case.
But you're not insured

[Jantar]

.....Tell the insurance company you don't accept their offer then file against the other driver and the insurer with Disputes Tribunal.
......

That is almost exactly what I would do in similar circumstances. However I would only file against the other driver. his insurer didn't cause the loss and are not party to the claim. The other driver has the contract with the insurance company.

[GrayWolf]

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.

I had a bike written off many years ago in a 'not at fault' situation... the other driver was prosecuted for 'driving without due care causing an accident'. I was young and dumb with 3rd party Fire/theft on a 250.
The first 'trick' they used was a low ball figure, then claimed I was 15% at 'fault' after their investigation, so therefore only entitled to a sum reduced by 15%...
I ended up using a solicitor and after some wrangling they covered the cost of the bike and gear. It took MONTHS.
I realise this was in the UK, but insurance companies are pretty much the same worldwide.

Lesson to learn, 3rd party insurance is better than none, BUT your insurance will not 'fight for you', you are on your own, jack.

If you want to be really covered, Full comp' is the ONLY way, then your company talks to their company and settle it, sometimes on a knock for knock basis, sometimes the offender's pays in full.

As for relying on others insurance? What if he had been a drunk driver? Or no WOF/Rego?.... Those are legal policy 'get outs' in many cases, to render the offender uninsured. Then mate, it's you, him, and the court system. Again Full Comp? You are covered and if they feel like it? They will be the ones taking the oik to court for compensation, and they HAVE the funds, lawyers etc to be successful.

[ldcroberts]

Seriously? You really really think that is some sort of analogy that fits with this situation? You really need to grow up.
I am genuinely interested in how this pans out.....

There are a lot of parallels between the two situations.

I think the biggest issue, which I'm sure everyone here can actually relate to, is people are being brainwashed into thinking that vehicles lose a lot of value immediately.

How many people here think "oh yeah I'd be willing to sell this 10k bike for 9k after 4 months if it was mine" ? nobody

yet we are all supposed to swallow that this is what would happen in a fair market

sure people think "I'd only pay $9k for a 4 month old vs 10k for new".

So nobody is selling (unless they are forced to - and then accept they take a loss blaming it on whatever reason forced them to sell).

Then in an accident you are effectively forced to sell, but they are supposed to make it based on a fair sale that you willingly did, yet nobody has the education or gumption to actually work it out that way, instead they look at the last time someone was forced to sell one, look at what they got from it, and go with that.

[discotex]

Dealers sell low km, low age cars and bikes *all* the time. They are called demo models. They regularly sell for 5-10% less than RRP.. That is fact, not brainwashing.

Try again young grasshopper.

[Scubbo]

I dunno if anyone told you but buying new vehicles especially in NZ isn't a good investment --- depreciation is very steep (less on bikes sure, but at the cheaper end, why buy 2nd hand when its only a few hundred more for a brand new, factory fresh, not driven by a grandma only on sundays that's done 1400KM in 4 months)

[ldcroberts]

Dealers sell low km, low age cars and bikes *all* the time. They are called demo models. They regularly sell for 5-10% less than RRP.. That is fact, not brainwashing.

Try again young grasshopper.

Sure, that is Market Price, not Market value - as per wikipedia. If there was a demo for sale same as my bike I'd accept that tho. I actually think given the difficulty running in the ninja's a demo would be worth the same as new or more - ask anyone that's run it in by the book, it's not fun - if the demo was legitimately run-in then it's a better buy, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. However I can accept that people who haven't tried running one in won't get it.

[discotex]

That is almost exactly what I would do in similar circumstances. However I would only file against the other driver. his insurer didn't cause the loss and are not party to the claim. The other driver has the contract with the insurance company.

They will turn up as 2nd party anyway.

From http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/disputes-tribunal/hearing-process/when-a-claim-is-made-against-you

"Disputes in the Tribunal often involve insurance. Your insurance company is entitled to take part in the hearing if it has paid you for the loss or damage, or if it might have to pay."

[ldcroberts]

I dunno if anyone told you but buying new vehicles especially in NZ isn't a good investment --- depreciation is very steep (less on bikes sure, but at the cheaper end, why buy 2nd hand when its only a few hundred more for a brand new, factory fresh, not driven by a grandma only on sundays that's done 1400KM in 4 months)

it's not smart to buy new with a view to on-selling quickly sure. If you intend to keep it for 10 years then buy new so you know it's been cared for.

Depreciation only happens on paper, you don't lose money unless you sell. I had no intention of selling, but now I have to.

If the guy who hit me is forcing me to effectively lose money through his actions, he's culpable for that too.

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

[discotex]

Sure, that is Market Price, not Market value - as per wikipedia. If there was a demo for sale same as my bike I'd accept that tho. I actually think given the difficulty running in the ninja's a demo would be worth the same as new or more - ask anyone that's run it in by the book, it's not fun - if the demo was legitimately run-in then it's a better buy, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. However I can accept that people who haven't tried running one in won't get it.

Actually what I said is the Wilipedia definition.. You're just too uneducated to understand what it means.

[skippa1]

There are a lot of parallels between the two situations.

I think the biggest issue, which I'm sure everyone here can actually relate to, is people are being brainwashed into thinking that vehicles lose a lot of value immediately.

How many people here think "oh yeah I'd be willing to sell this 10k bike for 9k after 4 months if it was mine" ? nobody

yet we are all supposed to swallow that this is what would happen in a fair market

sure people think "I'd only pay $9k for a 4 month old vs 10k for new".

So nobody is selling (unless they are forced to - and then accept they take a loss blaming it on whatever reason forced them to sell).

Then in an accident you are effectively forced to sell, but they are supposed to make it based on a fair sale that you willingly did, yet nobody has the education or gumption to actually work it out that way, instead they look at the last time someone was forced to sell one, look at what they got from it, and go with that.
That is not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that you refuse to believe your second hand bike isn't worth the same as a new one. It's got nothing to do with education or gumption, it's also got nothing to do with Wikipedia, or what's on the market that is a mirror image of what you lost.

it is everything to do with companies that apply the same set of principles to evaluating written off vehicles. Because you don't agree with that is of little consequence and if you we're really worried about achieving maximum value for your bike in a write off situation you would have got full comprehensive cover.

you didn't. Now you choose to argue the point on a forum, a situation where you will never win, because we don't have to replace your bike. And nor does your insurance company, because you don't have one. You are fucked. No amount of bleating here or using stupid analogy sis going to change that. Suck it up.

[ldcroberts]

That is not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that you refuse to believe your second hand bike isn't worth the same as a new one. It's got nothing to do with education or gumption, it's also got nothing to do with Wikipedia, or what's on the market that is a mirror image of what you lost.

What I refuse to believe is that the 9k offer is what willing sellers would sell that same bike for. I know I wouldn't, would you?

And after researching the law and how it all works, compensation in the instance of damage is supposed to be based on a willing seller and a fully informed willing buyer. That's a difficult point to get just by reading it, you have to think about something that doesn't usually happen in the vehicle market. Vehicle trading is not an example of a fair market, as the seller knows more than the buyer.

I'm not the first person to point this out, but it seems like it isn't well understood in NZ.

[Scubbo]

it's not smart to buy new with a view to on-selling quickly sure. If you intend to keep it for 10 years then buy new so you know it's been cared for.

Depreciation only happens on paper, you don't lose money unless you sell. I had no intention of selling, but now I have to.

If the guy who hit me is forcing me to effectively lose money through his actions, he's culpable for that too.

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)

[skippa1]

What I refuse to believe is that the 9k offer is what willing sellers would sell that same bike for. I know I wouldn't, would you?

And after researching the law and how it all works, compensation in the instance of damage is supposed to be based on a willing seller and a fully informed willing buyer. That's a difficult point to get just by reading it, you have to think about something that doesn't usually happen in the vehicle market. Vehicle trading is not an example of a fair market, as the seller knows more than the buyer.

I'm not the first person to point this out, but it seems like it isn't well understood in NZ.
What you refuse to believe isn't relevant to the other parties insurance company. Because you don't have a willing seller nor a willing buyer, principles are applied to calculate values. It's these principles that you refuse to agree with, but you have no control over that.

[Oscar]

insurance companies give you a brand new bike if it's less than 12 months old, they all do it these days.

I think you are implying that I'm trying to claim for something more than I'm fairly entitled to, however that is not the case.

Entitled?

If you had of wanted that outcome, you should have insured your bike.
You can bitch and moan all you like, but that outcome ain't going to happen.
You're entitled to what you can negotiate.

[skippa1]

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)
This here is the truth

[FJRider]

Plenty of them have sold for that too, that's why they keep listing them. Selling like proverbial hotcakes is what one dealer told me.

Did that dealer say what he would offer you for a near new EX300 with ABS and 1600 km's on the clock .. ??? <_<

In this situation to actually buy a replacement, I have to meet the market - i.e. come up to sellers expectations - and those are higher than what the insurance guys reckon they should be ...[/QUOTE]

No you don't have to "Meet the market" ... or any sellers expectations. You have to prove that your used and very second hand wreck was worth more than you are currently offered by said insurance guys. To date ... you haven't proved such. Nor made any Stated) attempt to prove such. A whinge on KB is all you've done.


There's all this talk of the phantom 2nd hand bike that should be for sale at 9k, but nobody is actually offering it, and everyone who has a brand new one wants 9899 and existing owners aren't talking - certainly nobodies jumped on this thread saying hey i've got a near new ninja I'll sell you for 9k have they.

I doubt if they would sell their bike just to do you a favour. And probably not sell at all until the warranty runs out. Or until their full license is gained. New bike purchase is better suited for longer terms of ownership .... as resale value on any new vehicles drop immediately after purchase. EX300's are not exempt nor are they an exception .... ask any dealer ...

[Oscar]

It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

Nope, it's between you and his insurer.
He has subrugted all his rights and interests to his insurer in this matter.

What's more - the insurer has no obligation to you.
Their obligation to their client is to cover him for damages that he becomes legally liable for.

Their obligations to their shareholders is to limit that amount to as little as legally possible.

[ldcroberts]

but it was 4 months old and 1400KM ridden, it's not new, it's not worth 100% no matter what you say

It probably is worth 100% but I'm happy to accept 5% less. (Just to clarify in case it wasn't clear from the 50 other posts I already said much the same thing in.)



you seem naive to think that the world owes you for choosing to take the risk of hedging 10K onto an asset so easily damageable and of little value to the world. you had bad luck, but a 9K recomp sounds pretty fricken good to me --- as you can't just blame the man for your crash, when it was you who bought the bike and decided to ride that day, with the known risks that entailed. (and the money protection wasnt important to you as you decided you didnt need full insurance support to bolster the odds in your favor)

nope the guy who didn't look, it's him that owes me.

What I now see clearly is that there is a difference between the bike market and a fair market. I also see the insurance companies and valuers are using the bike market as a guide, and everyone here including me can see that 9k is about right for selling a 2nd hand bike like mine on the bike market.

However, compensation for damages is supposed to be based on what would happen in a fair market (not a bike market). So in fact the market value in a fair market is higher than given in the bike market (the bike market the buyers have less information therefore on average offer less to offset the risk).

So effectively the whole insurance industry in NZ needs to change to use fair market - this will affect everyone in the industry - it will cause some insurance companies to raise premiums as payouts will be higher, and victims of accidents will feel they were treated more fairly.

So this is much bigger than just me and my bike and a few hundred dollars in difference between our perceived values.

[skippa1]

There's all this talk of the phantom 2nd hand bike that should be for sale at 9k, but nobody is actually offering it.
Incidentally, you're the only one that has mentioned a phantom bike

[ldcroberts]

Incidentally, you're the only one that has mentioned a phantom bike

I was referring to what the valuers have been using to estimate the value, they say if a bike was for sale it would be at this price (highest valuation I've got from a motorcycle dealer is $9350 for my bike - again based on the hypothetical phantom bike for sale - not an actual bike that is actually for sale)

[Oscar]

However, compensation for damages is supposed to be based on what would happen in a fair market (not a bike market).


1. Sez who?
2. Explain the difference between a "fair market" and a "bike market".

[ldcroberts]

No you don't have to "Meet the market" ... or any sellers expectations. You have to prove that your used and very second hand wreck was worth more than you are currently offered by said insurance guys. To date ... you haven't proved such. Nor made any Stated) attempt to prove such. A whinge on KB is all you've done.


Ok to update you, I talked with a motorcycle dealer and got a valuation sheet typed up for my bike with kms at $9350, presented that to the insurance company, and they want to meet me half way between $9k and that - so their offer is now $9175

[skippa1]

Ok to update you, I talked with a motorcycle dealer and got a valuation sheet typed up for my bike with kms at $9350, presented that to the insurance company, and they want to meet me half way between $9k and that - so their offer is now $9175
That's terrible. I hope you turned it down and told them you intend to overhaul the whole insurance industry in NZ

[ldcroberts]

1. Sez who?
2. Explain the difference between a "fair market" and a "bike market".


For reference you can look up this on wikipeda under "market value", as well as look at notes from actual legal cases online where the jury is instructed to consider things based on a fair market.

The difference is basically a fair market has a willing seller, and a willing buyer, and everything that can be known about the item is known by both parties, and they negotiate a fair value together.

In the case of the bike market, for near new vehicles you almost always have an unwilling seller who has mitigating circumstances, and the buyer will ask questions about how it was treated, reasons for selling, etc, and only believe half of it. This results in a lower price for the buyer as the seller has to come down until it is sold, and the buyer is suspicious so they offer less and consider the amount they saved to offset the "risk" of later finding out something important about the vehicle that was hidden during the negotiations by the seller (a funny rattle at a certain speed, etc).

It's kind of like the difference between buying a bike off a mate you trust vs a stranger on trademe - that is a bit closer to a fair market but only from the point of view that you know more about the bike when you are buying it.

[ldcroberts]

That's terrible. I hope you turned it down and told them you intend to overhaul the whole insurance industry in NZ

Well that's what I have to decide this weekend. Do I really have the energy for that, hmm maybe, hardly worth it for a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be worth it just for the fairness it brings to everyone else.

[skippa1]

Well that's what I have to decide this weekend. Do I really have the energy for that, hmm maybe, hardly worth it for a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be worth it just for the fairness it brings to everyone else.
You should, you really should! It's for the good of us all, you have the ideal opportunity with your situation, great reference material and an eye for what's fair and reasonable.

actually thinking about it, we could all chip in to cover your costs as it's for all of us

[Oscar]

For reference you can look up this on wikipeda under "market value", as well as look at notes from actual legal cases online where the jury is instructed to consider things based on a fair market.



Care to name one case in NZ?
Or a statute where it applies?

[FJRider]

it's not smart to buy new with a view to on-selling quickly sure. If you intend to keep it for 10 years then buy new so you know it's been cared for.

Well ... at least you know how you rode and looked after it ... with all your accumulated years of motorcycling experience ... (on non ABS bike(s ??)


Depreciation only happens on paper, you don't lose money unless you sell. I had no intention of selling, but now I have to.

On paper yes ... the folding stuff everybody likes ... and (again) ... YOU ARE NOT SELLING. You are being offered a replacement value. Your previous intentions are irrelevant.


If the guy who hit me is forcing me to effectively lose money through his actions, he's culpable for that too.

Nobody can/will FORCE you to sign the paper transferring ownership. Either accept or refuse the offer. (such is negotiation) Refuse and court action is probably your only remaining choice of options .. good luck with that.


It is between me and him, his insurance company can claim whatever policies they want, they have to honour his obligation at the end of the day.

Ummmm ... no ... Obligation does not necessarily mean a legally required action. Offers not promises were made. They can however say ... SEE YOU IN COURT .... Let the Judge decide ..

[FJRider]

1. Sez who?
2. Explain the difference between a "fair market" and a "bike market".

The OP is (now) an expert on market values ... and how such figures should be ascertained. How dare you question his experience and integrity ... <_<

[Scubbo]

you're just so lucky you didnt get hit by an uninsured person... as is so common in south auckland -- silver lining!!!

[ldcroberts]

Care to name one case in NZ?
Or a statute where it applies?

I understand that it's international

Some information obtained:

Reparation is a principle of law that has existed for centuries, referring to the obligation of a wrongdoing party to redress the damage caused to the injured party. Under international law, "reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed."(2)

The right to reparation is a well-established principle of international law. The International Law Commission affirmed this principle in its 53rd Session when it adopted the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.(3) The right is also firmly embodied in international human rights treaties and declarative instruments (4) and has been further refined by the jurisprudence of a large number of international and regional courts, as well as other treaty bodies and complaints mechanisms.(5)


further:

International Valuation Standards defines market value as "the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion."[1]

Market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is “the price at which one can transact”, while market value is “the true underlying value” according to theoretical standards. The concept is most commonly invoked in inefficient markets or disequilibrium situations where prevailing market prices are not reflective of true underlying market value. For market price to equal market value, the market must be informationally efficient and rational expectations must prevail.

[Gremlin]

This thread is now Epic... that's with a capital E too :woohoo:

[FJRider]

For reference you can look up this on wikipeda under "market value", as well as look at notes from actual legal cases online where the jury is instructed to consider things based on a fair market.

The difference is basically a fair market has a willing seller, and a willing buyer, and everything that can be known about the item is known by both parties, and they negotiate a fair value together.

Definition of Market Value ....

The highest price a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept, both being fully informed, and the property being exposed for sale ...

My definition of fair obviously differs from yours. Who is to say a jury member would agree with YOUR opinion of fair .. ??


In the case of the bike market, for near new vehicles you almost always have an unwilling seller who has mitigating circumstances, and the buyer will ask questions about how it was treated, reasons for selling, etc, and only believe half of it. This results in a lower price for the buyer as the seller has to come down until it is sold, and the buyer is suspicious so they offer less and consider the amount they saved to offset the "risk" of later finding out something important about the vehicle that was hidden during the negotiations by the seller (a funny rattle at a certain speed, etc).

So ... I can believe the owner of the 427 powered 57 Chev I was looking at on Trade Me ... "Only driven to Church on Sundays" .. ???


It's kind of like the difference between buying a bike off a mate you trust vs a stranger on trademe - that is a bit closer to a fair market but only from the point of view that you know more about the bike when you are buying it.

You trust your mates ... :killingme ... they'll want a "Mates" discount ... :lol:

[FJRider]

... actually thinking about it, we could all chip in to cover your costs as it's for all of us

I'd be happy to offer my two cents worth (in the interest of fairness of course) ... where do I send the cheque .. ???

[Jantar]

Nope, it's between you and his insurer.
He has subrugted all his rights and interests to his insurer in this matter.....
No it is NOT between the OP and the other driver's insurer. The other driver may have subrugated his rights and interest, but not his obligations. Also, the other driver has no rights nor interests in the OP's motorcycle that he can legally subrugate, only rights and interests in his own vehicle.
The dispute in value is beyween the OP and the other driver. The other driver is legally obligated to ask his insurance to act on his behalf, but as far as the OP is concerned, the dispute is with the other driver, and hence does not have to accept policies set by the insurance company.

[Oscar]

I understand that it's international

Some information obtained:

Reparation is a principle of law that has existed for centuries, referring to the obligation of a wrongdoing party to redress the damage caused to the injured party. Under international law, "reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed."(2)

The right to reparation is a well-established principle of international law. The International Law Commission affirmed this principle in its 53rd Session when it adopted the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.(3) The right is also firmly embodied in international human rights treaties and declarative instruments (4) and has been further refined by the jurisprudence of a large number of international and regional courts, as well as other treaty bodies and complaints mechanisms.(5)


further:

International Valuation Standards defines market value as "the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion."[1]

Market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is “the price at which one can transact”, while market value is “the true underlying value” according to theoretical standards. The concept is most commonly invoked in inefficient markets or disequilibrium situations where prevailing market prices are not reflective of true underlying market value. For market price to equal market value, the market must be informationally efficient and rational expectations must prevail.

So the guy that hit you was driving a supertanker outside the 3 mile limit?

[Oscar]

No it is NOT between the OP and the other driver's insurer. The other driver may have subrugated his rights and interest, but not his obligations. Also, the other driver has no rights nor interests in the OP's motorcycle that he can legally subrugate, only rights and interests in his own vehicle.
The dispute in value is beyween the OP and the other driver. The other driver is legally obligated to ask his insurance to act on his behalf, but as far as the OP is concerned, the dispute is with the other driver, and hence does not have to accept policies set by the insurance company.

The insurer is his "agent" in the legal sense of the word.
He is obliged to pass on any correspondence recieved from the other party.

[MarkH]

One point that I would hope was very clear to the OP and to all readers would be this:
Full insurance offers significant benefits in terms of reduced hassles & headaches in situations like this as well as accidents where you are at fault.

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.
But if a car pulls into your path and you are left with not enough time to avoid an accident then full insurance could buy you a new bike and save you a ton of hassle.

I recently have had a big improvement to my financial situation (full time employment clearing more than $600 per week) and have traded up to a bike worth $13k, fairly quickly I got onto a broker and arranged full insurance because:
a. I could afford to pay for insurance
and
b. I couldn't afford to not have insurance.

I urge others to learn from the OPs biggest mistake - have full insurance!

[varminter]

Well, this one's got me away from the TV.

Turns out the word is subrogated with an o not a u. Spell check still says it's wrong but it's not, it's a real word. See, who says you can't learn on KB.

So, what's he gonna do, can't wait for the next exciting episode. Bets taken?

[discotex]

He'll take the offer. Insurance co has his balls in a vice. Middling their slightly low assessor value and OP's slightly high dealer quote will be totally defensible as a reasonable estimate of fair market value in court.

Pretty stoked it came so close to my $9156 prediction too. As I said they'd probably throw him a bone at that amount :)

[Oscar]

Turns out the word is subrogated with an o not a u. Spell check still says it's wrong but it's not, it's a real word. See, who says you can't learn on KB.



Sorry about that - trying to watch the rugger AND post.

[Ocean1]

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.
But if a car pulls into your path and you are left with not enough time to avoid an accident then full insurance could buy you a new bike and save you a ton of hassle.

Actually, no insurance policy is better value than not having any insurance at all, as long as you can manage the cost of covering yourself.

If insurance companies didn't charge you more than the cost of your likely claims they wouldn't be in business very long.

[FJRider]

One point that I would hope was very clear to the OP and to all readers would be this:
Full insurance offers significant benefits in terms of reduced hassles & headaches in situations like this as well as accidents where you are at fault.




I urge others to learn from the OPs biggest mistake - have full insurance!

What he said ...

[Erelyes]

The fact that OP was uninsured means that the argument has got nothing to do with insurance.

Thank you!!!

Can the 'go and get full insurance' guys fuggoff. Had the guy been hit and run and been $9500k out of pocket due to 'liable party unknown' the point might be relevant.


In support of this I would like to add the additional information that I rode the bike in carefully as per manufacturers instructions - and that this was a difficult task that most reasonable people would consider added value to the bike - and in fact may have made the bike worth even more than the brand new 0km price to some people who would not have the time to devote to running it in and if ....

You actually thought this point had merit? Fuck Me. :facepalm:

This is simple. You paid $10k (not incl ORC which as we know you've consumed). They offered 9k. Rather than your verbose letter I would have simply replied saying you think $9650 is fair. Or, alternatively, they can buy a burnt orange 300 with the same or lower km's on your behalf. I would predict they will either come to the party or meet you in the middle. Either way, negotiate. I wouldn't even TALK about disputes tribunal, lawyer, etc in your first letter.

I would drop the whole public crusader thing as well, your letter will be read by someone that gets paid by the hour, you want to appear like a decent guy who wants a slightly fairer deal, not like an annoying prat who will cause headaches.


I can't get an accurate quote to straighten it in auckland - have to send it to hamilton to the experts for that, and it seems too hard really.

Exactly, forget about it, it ain't worth the headache and can of worms.


Sure, I'm not fighting as I need the extra $500 I might get, it's the principle and on behalf of others who may be more affected by this situation. The fight will no doubt cost a bit in court fees etc anyway. It's just about what is right not what is my best play for the $ at this point.

What principle exactly? Insurance companies are businesses and the end-game is to make money. It seems you think they should hold principles contrary to that. Sorry, but we live in a capitalist society these days.


Dude take my advice, walk into a pub, knock someones beer out of their hand onto the floor, tell them your theory about how it was second hand beer and not worth anything and they should have insurance, and take the lesson and learn from how they then educate you on how things work in the real world.

Beers are a consumable. Motorcycles are an asset. Your analogy is rubbish. Did you do economics at school? They covered this in 5th form (that may be year 11 to you).


The correct way to run in a bike is exactly as laid out in the owners manual. The engineers the designed and built the bike have a lot more useful wisdom than random internet people who read something somewhere that one time.

I reckon they're just trying to reduce warranty claims by conning people into riding like a sloth for umpteen thousand clicks.

[Erelyes]

You're entitled to what you can negotiate.

:niceone: You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Oscar again.

[Big Dog]

Eod you have two choices only. Accept the offer an move on.
Work out the exact costs of the accident and offer these costs to them as a counter.


Big companies see an early threat to go public or involve courts early as a weakness. Some will happily spend more on defending unreasonable people than it would have cost them to pay out because it costs them less in the long run.

They are not a charity.

You do not employ them.

They are acting on behalf of the policy holder.

I would personally send them a polite written communication including a valuation for a replacement bike (new at 4 months) and any other items damaged. Itemised and in the form of replacement quotes. I you had longer off of work than you are covered for I would include this in my claim.
I repeat itemise everything. Pen pushers who decide on payment or not love facts, invoices writing. They hate posturing, threats, rudeness and assumptions.

Their job is to get you to move along as cheaply as they can. If they can see you know and a judge is likely to agree with you they may just stamp it to be rid if you. Some assessors decline everything that crosses the desk first time every time.

His insurance company is employed by the insured to protect him against his financial liability. If he was uninsured the judgement would include these costs.

Don't try to inflate the cost.
Don't try to intimidate them.
Don't be rude.
Do be polite.
Do be clear.
Do leave your emotions at the door when talking to them. If you can't, get an advocate to deal on your behalf.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ldcroberts]

well what it boils down to is the other guy has to put me back to how I was before the accident.

I had a near new vehicle, on the road, all serviced etc. It was run-in so that I could take it on the motorway, which I need to do to get to work (and I can't ride a brand new bike as per manufacturers run-in instructions on the motorway at 60kph).

I've got a quote from a licensed vehicle dealer to supply exactly the same bike, all run-in and serviced, same km's as my bike ready to ride on the motorway. Delivered to me for $11,600

It wouldn't put me in a better position than what I had, it would effectively be exactly the same.

The other option is to repair my bike which costs $13k+

There is no option to replace it with a second hand bike the same nor a demo bike as there are none for sale.

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for that. If I was to get $9k cash I couldn't get anywhere near back to where I was could I.

[ldcroberts]

Beers are a consumable. Motorcycles are an asset. Your analogy is rubbish. Did you do economics at school? They covered this in 5th form (that may be year 11 to you).


A vehicle is something that gets used, used up, and replaced. It's a consumable. Like anything you can buy for a business you can treat it like an asset and claim depreciation, but that's a separate issue. You could possibly buy and resell beer and treat it as an asset too, I'm picking that bars do this with their stock though I don't know for sure.

[Mike.Gayner]

I've always stated that I paid over $10,500 for the privilege of riding the bike for 4 months (more if you count petrol i suppose), and I can't ride it any more, and that I want $10k back and can accept a $500 loss, but a $1500 loss is not fair (but without the wah wah bit - I guess that was inferred).

Fair value has to be what someone will actually sell it for willingly.

You're like a pouting child.

[Scubbo]

but the money means nothing to you as you werent insured for the value of your bike.... you were much more likely to be in a situation where no recomp for your $10500 bike would occur --- such as, you caused the accident, the other party is uninsured or invalidates their insurance terms (no wof/bad tires at time etc etc etc) --- you are soooo fckn lucky you got a chance at getting money back as it was you who put yourself in such a bad situation --- 10K must come so easy to you to think it's not worth protecting........................................ .......... :mad:

[skippa1]

well what it boils down to is the other guy has to put me back to how I was before the accident.
.
That's what you want.....but who says he has to? Who said that? You asked a lawyer? How about citizens advice? Did you get professional opinion from an insurance specialist?

How are you going to enforce what you want?

[MarkH]

Actually, no insurance policy is better value than not having any insurance at all, as long as you can manage the cost of covering yourself.

If insurance companies didn't charge you more than the cost of your likely claims they wouldn't be in business very long.

I stand by my statement!

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.

Insurance is profitable for the insurance companies because of all the customers that insure stuff but never need to make a claim.
But, should you be an unlucky person that has an accident that writes off your vehicle then you will be worse off financially if you don't have insurance.
It is the others that aren't involved in accidents (or are only involved in a minor ding that doesn't cost a fortune) that are better off without insurance.

Having insurance is about risk management (primarily reducing variance) and also a huge reduction in stress and hassle if involved in an incident, whether it is you or the other party that is at fault.

For me insurance means I lose $492 per year, but no insurance means a potential huge swing of losing zero or maybe losing $13k - that is way too huge a variance for me to live with. I choose to moderate the risk of maybe being $13k out of pocket by choosing to be $492 out of pocket which means it would take 26 years to suffer the same loss, spread out like that the loss is much more palatable.

[ldcroberts]

That's what you want.....but who says he has to? Who said that? You asked a lawyer? How about citizens advice? Did you get professional opinion from an insurance specialist?

How are you going to enforce what you want?

Reparation for this situation: the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

[skippa1]

For redress for this situation the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

Most likely?assuming?interpreted?
what do you think it will cost to enforce? A lot more than the "saving" of not having full insurance and any additional gain you might get awarded by the court, if or when they find a slot to fit you in.
im picking you are 24 years of age or less, have a misplaced sense of entitlement and a belief that that what entitlement you have will be upheld because its right and right always wins.

[ldcroberts]

Most likely?assuming?interpreted?
what do you think it will cost to enforce? A lot more than the "saving" of not having full insurance and any additional gain you might get awarded by the court, if or when they find a slot to fit you in.
im picking you are 24 years of age or less, have a misplaced sense of entitlement and a belief that that what entitlement you have will be upheld because its right and right always wins.

It doesn't matter what it costs, if I'm right they'll have to pay those costs.

Sure it will take time.

I'm much older than you think, I got my first motorbike in 1984, and I've had to fight for my rights in the past, and yes it has a cost, and yes I've won more than I've lost. I try not to pick a fight I would lose I guess. I'm discussing all aspects and researching in preparation to represent myself.

Yes I paid cash for the bike, yes I can survive if I lose it all, yes I like the intellectual challenge of working out what's right and fighting for change in the world, it's as good a thing to do with my time as anything else.

[Big Dog]

Reparation for this situation: the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

Question becomes is it worth the cost of going to court x the time lost by you enforcing your claim x risk of getting nothing at all. Based on your previous statements you are les than 3k apart. You can probably negotiate an additional 2k if you follow my earlier advice. A lawyer will cost $500-1500 and the maximum judgement you will get is bike replacement cost (prob for a new one, not a run in one) + damaged gear + time off work not covered by acc or private insurance.

There is a reason it is called a settlement. They want you to settle on a price with them that is fair and equitable. If you get emotional and rush off to court without a fair attempt at arbitration you may end up with nothing.

If you get adversarial too early they have more money to spend on lawyers than you do and if you made no fair attempt at settlement a judge is likely to side with the disadvantaged party. That won't be you if you went all adversarial straight away.
If you can show via a paper trail of unreasonable offers and quotes that you are disadvantaged the judge will side with you.
Believe me they have a paper trail of every dealing with you. Including voice recordings if you abuse them over the phone.
Do you have said paper trail?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big Dog]

If you are not prepared to take the advice being offered by myself and others in this thread perhaps you should tuck your petticoat in and take some concrete pills, because you really need to harden the fuck up if your going to use the public road without insurance. Especially on $10k of what I assume is hard earned cash.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

... Especially on $10k of what I assume is hard earned cash.





At the very least ... $10k of somebody elses money ...

[Big Dog]

It doesn't matter what it costs, if I'm right they'll have to pay those costs.

Sure it will take time.

I'm much older than you think, I got my first motorbike in 1984, and I've had to fight for my rights in the past, and yes it has a cost, and yes I've won more than I've lost. I try not to pick a fight I would lose I guess. I'm discussing all aspects and researching in preparation to represent myself.

Yes I paid cash for the bike, yes I can survive if I lose it all, yes I like the intellectual challenge of working out what's right and fighting for change in the world, it's as good a thing to do with my time as anything else.

Really, sounds more like you have chip on your shoulder and are spoiling for a fight to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ldcroberts]

I you had longer off of work than you are covered for I would include this in my claim.

Sure did, extra $1500+ lost earnings. Can I really include that? the insurance guy said no on the phone they don't cover consequential losses, but he may be incorrect, and it may be up to the guy that caused the accident. Acc don't cover it anyway as it was the first week.

[FJRider]

well what it boils down to is the other guy has to put me back to how I was before the accident.

Until the judge orders it ... no he doesn't ...


I had a near new vehicle, on the road, all serviced etc.

A second hand used vehicle that you want NEW price payment for ... actually.


I've got a quote from a licensed vehicle dealer to supply exactly the same bike, all run-in and serviced, same km's as my bike ready to ride on the motorway. Delivered to me for $11,600

So ... effectively that would also make it a second hand used vehicle ... that you are asking them to pay more for ... than a new vehicle with zero km's on the clock. And you expect them to agree to that .. ??


It wouldn't put me in a better position than what I had, it would effectively be exactly the same.

The position you are in .. is entirely of your making. You have been offered a ladder out of the hole you dug for yourself.


The other option is to repair my bike which costs $13k+

You know that option will never happen ... Both impracticable and expensive.


There is no option to replace it with a second hand bike the same nor a demo bike as there are none for sale.

There NEVER was that option. The $9175 was offered to do what you liked with ... piss it all against the wall for all they care.


I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for that. If I was to get $9k cash I couldn't get anywhere near back to where I was could I.

It'll take a bit of digging to get yourself out of that hole you're in ... At this stage that $9k is not owed ... merely offered.

[Oscar]

Sure did, extra $1500+ lost earnings. Can I really include that? the insurance guy said no on the phone they don't cover consequential losses, but he may be incorrect, and it may be up to the guy that caused the accident. Acc don't cover it anyway as it was the first week.

Shit you don't have a clue do you?
If you are not insured, why are you asking the insurer what you can claim?
If you sustained a loss as the result of someone elses negligence, your remedy is either a negotaited settlement with the other party (or in this case his insurer) or legal remedies.
This claim should include a description of any and all losses suffered by you, not just what you think the other guy is covered for.

[ldcroberts]

Until the judge orders it ... no he doesn't ...

tell that to the next person who's beer you spill



So ... effectively that would also make it a second hand used vehicle ... that you are asking them to pay more for ... than a new vehicle with zero km's on the clock. And you expect them to agree to that .. ??

It would be improved to the point you can take it on the motorway which is what I had and what I need. Just because I put the effort in to improve it myself, doesn't mean I should lose it and it counts for nothing. If you buy a house, fix it up, then it burns down can you claim improved value? - I'm sure you can.



The position you are in .. is entirely of your making. You have been offered a ladder out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Um not my making, the other drivers making, you are getting things mixed up and trying to blame me for not having insurance to cover his actions.

[FJRider]

tell that to the next person who's beer you spill

I've never spilled $9k worth of beer ....


It would be improved to the point you can take it on the motorway which is what I had and what I need. Just because I put the effort in to improve it myself, doesn't mean I should lose it and it counts for nothing. If you buy a house, fix it up, then it burns down can you claim improved value? - I'm sure you can.

You could have taken it on the motorway off the showroom floor. Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.


Um not my making, the other drivers making, you are getting things mixed up and trying to blame me for not having insurance to cover his actions.

The risk you took. Had you got the full insurance ... you'd be riding now.

[ldcroberts]

Shit you don't have a clue do you?
If you are not insured, why are you asking the insurer what you can claim?
If you sustained a loss as the result of someone elses negligence, your remedy is either a negotaited settlement with the other party (or in this case his insurer) or legal remedies.
This claim should include a description of any and all losses suffered by you, not just what you think the other guy is covered for.

I involved my insurance company initially to sort out the accident - after they talked to the other parties company and got the description off the accident off both of us, they decided he was 100% at fault and then said they would no longer be involved and I had to deal directly with the other parties insurance company.

The other parties insurance company made me sign a waiver with them to say I didn't have insurance. They then gave me a claim number and advised me to have the bike towed at their expense to my chosen repair place for appraisal. Then about 3 weeks later they came back and said it would be written off and sent me a letter offering me $9k for it. That's about when I started this thread.

I'm trying to learn as much as I can in quite a short time. On the plus side I'm a fast learner, on the minus side there is a lot of confusion and misinformation to be found too.

[Madness]

well what it boils down to is the other guy has to put me back to how I was before the accident.

LMFTO! What it boils down to is you're an un-insured muppet & the other guy doesn't have to do anything.

I'm confused. You say this;


I've got a quote from a licensed vehicle dealer to supply exactly the same bike, all run-in and serviced, same km's as my bike ready to ride on the motorway. Delivered to me for $11,600

Then in the same post you say this. Did the dealer give you a quote for something they cannot supply, or are you drunk?


There is no option to replace it with a second hand bike the same nor a demo bike as there are none for sale.


I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for that. If I was to get $9k cash I couldn't get anywhere near back to where I was could I.

Perhaps you should have taken out insurance then. :facepalm:

[ldcroberts]

You could have taken it on the motorway off the showroom floor. Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.

not according to the run-in as per manufacturers instructions, which limit the revs to 4000RPM for the first 800km which in top gear is 62kph, then the next 800km (i.e. up to 1600km is 6000RPM - still not 100kph). I don't make those rules, and the dealer didn't tell me until I'd paid for it, but that's how it is.

[ldcroberts]

I'm confused. You say this;
Then in the same post you say this. Did the dealer give you a quote for something they cannot supply, or are you drunk?

That dealer will take a brand new bike and get their mechanic to run it in - charging extra. That's the only way to get an equivalent bike on todays market.

[Racing Dave]

The other parties insurance company made me sign a waiver with them to say I didn't have insurance.

They made you? How, exactly? By threats? Or did they ask you, and you meekly agreed.

[russd7]

There is some really fucked up thinking goin on in this thread and i don't mean by the OP, why should he not expect to be put back to where he was before he got taken out, it was not his fault and at no point has he said he wanted more than what he had before he was taken out, there are no bikes available for sale that are of similar kms and age so there for it is up to the insurer to put him back better, why should he be worse off and whether or not he had insurance is irrelevant. he is in a position where the insurer of the other party has accepted liability.
if it were me i would be going back to them and stating the price of a new bike on the road plus helmet and if the other riding gear was ok state that you wont claim on that if they pay out in full on a new bike on the road.
why should he just bend over and get shafted, im not saying he should threaten legal action but i don't agree he should accept their offer either, he was not selling his bike so the second hand bike argument is a moot point.
The insurance company is not going to pay out on lost wages due to the accident and it is very doubtful that a judge will rule in favour of it, that is why we have ACC and i know you lose the first week wages for a non work related accident.

FJ, if you borrow something off a friend and it breaks through your negligence are you telling me you would not replace it. Or are you one of these people who say oh no that was three years old so was gonna break anyway.

[ldcroberts]

They made you? How, exactly? By threats? Or did they ask you, and you meekly agreed.

they required it before they would proceed with taking the bike to get assessed, and I was eager to get things moving.

[russd7]

You could have taken it on the motorway off the showroom floor. Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.

why would you not expect an ex300 to do motorway speeds and last, or do you think that the ex300 is a 50cc scooter just to be ridin in town

[Madness]

...whether or not he had insurance is irrelevant. he is in a position where the insurer of the other party has accepted liability.

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

[ldcroberts]

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

I'm picking this will end up with me and the other guy (or an insurance delegate representing him) in court, where the ruling covers his liability, his insurance may or may not cover all of his liability depending on his policy. This would then be a lesson to all people who have insurance to check what they are covered for.

According to his policy wording I believe it says anything up to $2m so I expect he'll be fine.

But I think people are right I don't have to play the insurance industries games, it's simple between me and him in the courts eyes.

[Oscar]

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

Not really.
When it comes down to it, this is a simple case of legal liability to be proven (or otherwise) either by party to party negotiation or legally.
For him to couch his losses in terms of the other guys insurance policy is very silly.
What would have happen if the other guy's insurance had a Third Party excess (rare but not unheard of)?
"Oh well, your cover doesn't pay the first thousand, I'll pass on that.." Of course not, that would become a matter between the two parties, just like any other uninsured losses, like loss of income or an insurance settlement that the OP thought was inadequate.

He is not a party to the other fellas insurance and cannot be bound by it.
Even his declaration of non-insurance is merely a way for the insurer to abide by the Knock for Knock agreement, and means very little.
He is not required to deal with the other guys insurer (although if he didn't it would slow things down considerably), he is quite entitled to continue dealing directly with the individual that caused the damage (and of course that individual would be bound by his contract with the insurer, and obliged to pass on all correspondence to that insurer).

[skippa1]

It doesn't matter what it costs, if I'm right they'll have to pay those costs.

Sure it will take time.

I'm much older than you think, I got my first motorbike in 1984, and I've had to fight for my rights in the past, and yes it has a cost, and yes I've won more than I've lost. I try not to pick a fight I would lose I guess. I'm discussing all aspects and researching in preparation to represent myself.

Yes I paid cash for the bike, yes I can survive if I lose it all, yes I like the intellectual challenge of working out what's right and fighting for change in the world, it's as good a thing to do with my time as anything else.
Right got it now. You're a muppet that acts like a 19 year old, speaks in riddles and must be related to another kb member called Cassina.

[FJRider]

FJ, if you borrow something off a friend and it breaks through your negligence are you telling me you would not replace it. Or are you one of these people who say oh no that was three years old so was gonna break anyway.

So ... the person that ran into him was a friend of his ... nice one. Is that what friends do these days ... no wonder they offered the money ...

[FJRider]

I'm picking this will end up with me and the other guy (or an insurance delegate representing him) in court, where the ruling covers his liability, his insurance may or may not cover all of his liability depending on his policy. This would then be a lesson to all people who have insurance to check what they are covered for.

All that will be mentioned in court is hi legal liability (and offers made to you and were refused. In Court ... what his insurance policy may contain is between the insurer and the insured.

The Insurance delegate will have done his job ... they leave the court stuff to lawyers ...

The lesson is for those with no insurance.


But I think people are right I don't have to play the insurance industries games, it's simple between me and him in the courts eyes.

But the Judge decides ... just be sure to make the same claims and statements to the judge ... as you made to us.

You'll be fine ... honest ...

[quickbuck]

Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.


.
Actually they will with no problems..... Wish more people would realise this instead of thinking they need to buy a 600 or 1000.......

But as you were.....

[Big Dog]

I involved my insurance company initially to sort out the accident - after they talked to the other parties company and got the description off the accident off both of us, they decided he was 100% at fault and then said they would no longer be involved and I had to deal directly with the other parties insurance company.

The other parties insurance company made me sign a waiver with them to say I didn't have insurance. They then gave me a claim number and advised me to have the bike towed at their expense to my chosen repair place for appraisal. Then about 3 weeks later they came back and said it would be written off and sent me a letter offering me $9k for it. That's about when I started this thread.

I'm trying to learn as much as I can in quite a short time. On the plus side I'm a fast learner, on the minus side there is a lot of confusion and misinformation to be found too.

You sir they have over a barrel and they are reaching for the Vaseline.

You have provided false information. If they know this they may refuse your claim. If they chose to do that good luck getting insurance without lying on the application where it asks "have you ever had an insurance claim denied".

If your insurance company gave you the flick when blame was apportioned name them, shame them and change insurer. They insure you and are supposed to pay you out and seek restitution from the other party or their insurer.

Or were you hoping to not lose your excess by leaving your insurer out of it? If so change your insurer. Most reputable companies have no excess for no fault claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big Dog]

Actually they will with no problems..... Wish more people would realise this instead of thinking they need to buy a 600 or 1000.......

But as you were.....

Depends on gearing, distance and load. My 350 was magic from CBD to west Auckland. Not so to Bombays. Got really hot droning along at high rpm. Re geared it, much better. Too late, already losing oil and frothing what was left. Will probably make it my summer commuter if / when I can manage an engine rebuild.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Voltaire]

How badly damaged is the bike? Might be worth taking a mix of cash and bike and flogging the bike on TM or parting it out.
Although I am in the " you should have had insurance' camp I have ridden with no insurance on and off in the past.

My Subaru got nicked from outside my house and they amazingly caught the guy, after roadspiking him and the car being wrecked....
I had to pay the $400 excess until they get it from him..... gotta love Insurance Companies.:no:

[ldcroberts]

You sir they have over a barrel and they are reaching for the Vaseline.

You have provided false information. If they know this they may refuse your claim. If they chose to do that good luck getting insurance without lying on the application where it asks "have you ever had an insurance claim denied".

If your insurance company gave you the flick when blame was apportioned name them, shame them and change insurer. They insure you and are supposed to pay you out and seek restitution from the other party or their insurer.

Or were you hoping to not lose your excess by leaving your insurer out of it? If so change your insurer. Most reputable companies have no excess for no fault claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't have insurance to cover damage to my vehicle. I think they require that in writing to stop people claiming insurance twice from your own company and then the other.

[ldcroberts]

How badly damaged is the bike? Might be worth taking a mix of cash and bike and flogging the bike on TM or parting it out.
Although I am in the " you should have had insurance' camp I have ridden with no insurance on and off in the past.

My Subaru got nicked from outside my house and they amazingly caught the guy, after roadspiking him and the car being wrecked....
I had to pay the $400 excess until they get it from him..... gotta love Insurance Companies.:no:

frame bent, forks bent, wheel bent, headlights smashed, fairings cracked, mirror broken off. possible to straighten I'm sure but hard to be sure of actual cost and resale worth afterwards. In the scenario I kept it I'd get less than 5k towards it from the present offer the insurance company has made.

[Voltaire]

They are trying to fuck you. Get lawyered up. I have a recommendation for you: a mate of mine is a specialist insurance lawyer. Its what he does. Its all he does. He will tell you. I have PM'ed you his website. My serious suggeston is that you talk to someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about. That isnt me. Its not any of these internet people (if indeed they are people and not just the voices in my head).

No disrespect to the fine legal community :rolleyes: but who gets " lawyered up" over $1500?

I sold a house recently and it was $300 an hour to basically do some form filling and photocopying.:lol:

[FJRider]

No disrespect to the fine legal community :rolleyes: but who gets " lawyered up" over $1500?

I sold a house recently and it was $300 an hour to basically do some form filling and photocopying.:lol:

If it gets to court ... it'll be "over" $11,000 ... as ALL previous offers will be out the window.

[FJRider]

frame bent, forks bent, wheel bent, headlights smashed, fairings cracked, mirror broken off. possible to straighten I'm sure but hard to be sure of actual cost and resale worth afterwards. In the scenario I kept it I'd get less than 5k towards it from the present offer the insurance company has made.

With all your experience and integrity ... would you buy (and trust) a motorcycle seller ... that advertised repair was made to a bike with such damage ... ??? And still pay market value for that model ... ???

[ldcroberts]

With all your experience and integrity ... would you buy (and trust) a motorcycle seller ... that advertised repair was made to a bike with such damage ... ??? And still pay market value for that model ... ???

nah no chance, however I don't really understand why the wheels need to line up exactly - I'm sure a little bit of a variation doesn't matter for average on-road conditions.

[Jantar]

nah no chance, however I don't really understand why the wheels need to line up exactly - I'm sure a little bit of a variation doesn't matter for average on-road conditions.Oh dear. I think you may have another accident.

[Mike.Gayner]

nah no chance, however I don't really understand why the wheels need to line up exactly - I'm sure a little bit of a variation doesn't matter for average on-road conditions.

Oh jesus, idiocy confirmed.

[Erelyes]

nah no chance, however I don't really understand why the wheels need to line up exactly - I'm sure a little bit of a variation doesn't matter for average on-road conditions.

I don't really understand why drinking brake fluid isn't recommended - I'm sure a little bit of poison doesn't matter for your average human being.

[Madness]

No disrespect to the fine legal community :rolleyes: but who gets " lawyered up" over $1500?

The same kind of fuckwit that believes the act of running in a brand new bike increases its value, the same kind of fuckwit who's willing to effectively pay someone to run their new bike in for them, the same kind of fuckwit that doesn't understand the importance of wheel alignment on a motorcycle and lastly, the same kind of fuckwit that is prepared to take a trivial insurance claim international for the sake of making a point. I could be wrong.

[skippa1]

nah no chance, however I don't really understand why the wheels need to line up exactly - I'm sure a little bit of a variation doesn't matter for average on-road conditions.
I think Cassina has two profiles

[ldcroberts]

Oh jesus, idiocy confirmed.

Ok I looked it up, doesn't have to be exact - can have a little bit out without anything noticeable, but we are talking a few mm only of course.

http://classicmotorcycles.about.com/od/technicaltips/ss/Classic-Motorcycle-Wheel-Alignment.htm

[Tazz]

Man this thread has grown quickly. Some gems since I last looked :jerry:


They are insured ... HE WASN'T. They have insurance to sort their own shit out dipstick.

And when their own shit is an accident they've caused...what happens genius? :rolleyes:

Do you realize there is an insurance policy that even only covers accidents that are your fault? Do you even own a vehicle?

[bogan]

I don't really understand why drinking brake fluid isn't recommended - I'm sure a little bit of poison doesn't matter for your average human being.

Just a little is ok, and at least with brake fluid, you can stop anytime you want :shifty:

[Oscar]

Just a little is ok, and at least with brake fluid, you can stop anytime you want :shifty:

Reminds me of the time the cops caught two kids in the park - one was drinking battery acid, the other snorting gunpowder.







They charged one, and let the other off...

[ldcroberts]

well i rang a lawyer for advice this morning, he said yes I could claim lost income from work, yes I could even claim for the loss in value of the bike due to depreciation in market value as I wasn't planning on selling it, and yes I could claim for my travel costs since the accident while they are still sorting out the settlement.

Further discussions with the insurance company revealed that while I could claim those from their client, they wouldn't be footing the bill as they only cover him for direct losses assessed at their market value not consequential losses, so effectively going to disputes tribunal would mean they'd pay out the same, and he'd have to top up the rest, and if he was unhappy he'd have to take his own insurance company to dispute tribunal himself and probably lose and fork out to pay me the difference.

Anyway I've had enough of it anyway, took the payout, the other dude doesn't have to fork out himself (lucky him, maybe I'll get the karma back some day, although he probably doesn't even know any of this anyway), and someday I'll write a letter to one of the university law professors to look into whether the market value discrepancy I've explained earlier in the thread applies in NZ and then take it to the media if the insurance companies need to change.

Here's part of the response from their insurance company:


These additional costs are deemed consequential losses, and our policy does not cover these (for our insured or other party’s) however once the claim is completed you can submit these for consideration, we cannot advise what may or may not be covered at this time, as there may be costs accruing due to delays at your end, and we are not liable for these.

[Tazz]

Considering he wasn't a dick about it and people do make mistakes (part of life) that is the right course of action I'd grudgingly say, in the sense that the insurance company/money grubber has essentially said he is not really covered for much when all circumstances of an accident are considered despite a lot of bleating on here about how it is a vital part of motoring (which isn't completely wrong in some respects).

All in all it could have been a lot worse, you could be in hospital with broken limbs or neck as well as being out of pocket.

Keep us updated on any further info you get from whomever you contact.

[Gremlin]

Anyway I've had enough of it anyway, took the payout,
Pretty sure we'd covered this on page 1, but hey, 230 posts later, you got there! :niceone:

[Madness]

...take it to the media...

I reckon the Paul Henry show is your best bet here, he's always looking for earth-shattering news stories.

[ldcroberts]

Pretty sure we'd covered this on page 1, but hey, 230 posts later, you got there! :niceone:

plus the 51 emails back and forth with the insurance company, then there's the phone conversations prior to that including 1 whole hour talking to the valuer.

this was their fairly standard response to most of my concerns:


We are confident the process that has been followed is both fair and consistent with how we and other Insurers would respond in this situation.

Therefore, if you are still unhappy with this offer of settlement, I’d recommend your next step would be to initiate Disputes Tribunal proceedings to seek an independent ruling on this.

[discotex]

Well at least you can take some solace in the fact that you screwed them around (for no good reason) and made them earn their settlement... Probably cost them $300 dealing with you.

Wish you'd gone to DT though. Would have been a way more fulfilling end than the "yeah I could have totally won against the man but I was the bigger person" backdown.

Although if you do get a real legal opinion in writing do post it :)

[discotex]

Oh... And I'm quite surprised a lawyer would tell you that you can claim lost income from an accident related injury.

Read the law for yourself... Seems pretty clear to me.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM103473.html


(1)No person may bring proceedings independently of this Act, whether under any rule of law or any enactment, in any court in New Zealand, for damages arising directly or indirectly out of—
(a)personal injury covered by this Act; or
(b)personal injury covered by the former Acts.

[Mike.Gayner]

plus the 51 emails back and forth with the insurance company, then there's the phone conversations prior to that including 1 whole hour talking to the valuer.

this was their fairly standard response to most of my concerns:

Good thing your time has no value. My time, on the other hand.....

[ldcroberts]

Oh... And I'm quite surprised a lawyer would tell you that you can claim lost income from an accident related injury.

Read the law for yourself... Seems pretty clear to me.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM103473.html

the lost income was due to not having transport - it's too hard to get through traffic in a reasonable time without a motorbike - stuffed up my childcare arrangements when i had to spend 2 hours on a bus

[skippa1]

the lost income was due to not having transport - it's too hard to get through traffic in a reasonable time without a motorbike - stuffed up my childcare arrangements when i had to spend 2 hours on a bus
And the whole world must accommodate you and your inconvenience :facepalm:......and all due to your own stupid decision

[ldcroberts]

And the whole world must accommodate you and your inconvenience :facepalm:......and all due to your own stupid decision

sorry you appear to be speaking in too much of a riddle here, I don't get it.

[discotex]

the lost income was due to not having transport - it's too hard to get through traffic in a reasonable time without a motorbike - stuffed up my childcare arrangements when i had to spend 2 hours on a bus

The law says "arising directly or indirectly out of"...

[skippa1]

sorry you appear to be speaking in too much of a riddle here, I don't get it.
You cancel full insurance to save money and take the risk yourself
the risk turns into a reality and it pisses you off
you try to get the other parties insurance company to pay up for your bad decision
you try to get payment for a new bike when yours was second hand
you argue about why a second hand bike should be replaced with new
you ignore over 200 posts telling you to take the money offered
you argue that you're right and everyone else is wrong
you want money to compensate you for inconvenience
you bleat about having to catch a bus
you bleat about childcare arrangements


all a result of your shit decision. The key word is you

Reality and consequence are ignored.

The decision was made by ...............you

(now it must be time to send this thread to PD)

[Tazz]

sorry you appear to be speaking in too much of a riddle here, I don't get it.

The choice you made to get into an accident of course. ;)

:p

[sil3nt]

Good thing your time has no value. My time, on the other hand.....Given the amount of shit you post on here it obviously isn't worth much either.

[ldcroberts]

The choice you made to get into an accident of course. ;)

:p

or maybe it was the choice not to take out income protection insurance this time, who knows, presumably he has every possible kind of insurance himself. I wonder if you can get insurance against appearing as an idiot online - he'll probably claim I need that and that he already has it.

[Madness]

the lost income was due to not having transport - it's too hard to get through traffic in a reasonable time without a motorbike - stuffed up my childcare arrangements when i had to spend 2 hours on a bus

Bloody lucky you weren't on your way to the airport at the time your accident and as a result unable to make an international flight. That could have cost the bastard heaps!

I still say you should take it international. What did Paul Henry have to say?

[Tazz]

or maybe it was the choice not to take out income protection insurance this time, who knows, presumably he has every possible kind of insurance himself. I wonder if you can get insurance against appearing as an idiot online - he'll probably claim I need that and that he already has it.

Don't forget your insurance insurance incase your insurance doesn't want to play ball.

[swbarnett]

... all a result of your shit decision. The key word is you
Surely the decision of the other party to turn in front of him had something to do with it?

[ldcroberts]

Surely the decision of the other party to turn in front of him had something to do with it?

I don't think he's worried about that happening to him as he has insurance!

[skippa1]

Surely the decision of the other party to turn in front of him had something to do with it?
Yes it did, but from then on......

[ldcroberts]

You cancel full insurance to save money and take the risk yourself
the risk turns into a reality and it pisses you off
you try to get the other parties insurance company to pay up for your bad decision
you try to get payment for a new bike when yours was second hand
you argue about why a second hand bike should be replaced with new
you ignore over 200 posts telling you to take the money offered
you argue that you're right and everyone else is wrong
you want money to compensate you for inconvenience
you bleat about having to catch a bus
you bleat about childcare arrangements


all a result of your shit decision. The key word is you

Reality and consequence are ignored.

The decision was made by ...............you

(now it must be time to send this thread to PD)

I'm still not sure I get where you are coming from.

Driving happily along on way to work when oncoming car suddenly swerves in your path, bang. Miss out on the job you were going to (someone else has to do it instead as it couldn't be delayed), busing takes an extra 1.5 hours, so you have to account for that to be back as you can't leave kids alone, etc.

I think you are ignoring reality if you think your insurance company is going to swoop in with a helicopter to the accident site, take you to where you were going so you wouldn't be late, drop off an exact replacement of your bike or better for you to use to get home, and you live happily ever after in your little fairy tale world.