Insurance question

[Asher]

I have a question for the collective genius that is KB.

Last Tuesday night my friend was involved in a pretty nasty crash in Christchurch.

He was riding his brand new S1000RR down Selwin St when an elderly lady pulled a U turn in front of him.
The bike looks to be a write off with front end and fairing damage and he is currently in Burwood with a broken neck, back and pelvis.

He doesn't have insurance as he is on his restricted. My understanding of the law means that as long as he is found to be not at fault him not being on the correct license isn't grounds for the drivers insurance not to pay out.

Anyone been in a similar situation or thinks they know if he's covered or not?

[f2dz]

I think he would be covered so long as he's not at fault but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some loophole somewhere which means that he won't be.

My ol man used to sell insurance and the one thing he always tells me is that if an insurance company can come up with any way to get out of paying a claim then they will.

Be interesting to know if he'll be in with the cops for riding illegally at the time of the crash.

[Sushi Bandit]

It's up to the elderly lady who did the damage (and her insurance company) to pay. The issue will lie in whether or not her insurance company will pay out the claim for your friends bike as he was riding illegally at the time. If not, he may have to take her to the small claims court to try and get his costs back. And as the above post says, if the insurance company can get out of paying, they will.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I know the best insurance lawyer in the country if you want a referral. If you do PM me your email address - or your mate's: whatever.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's up to the elderly lady who did the damage (and her insurance company) to pay. The issue will lie in whether or not her insurance company will pay out the claim for your friends bike as he was riding illegally at the time. If not, he may have to take her to the small claims court to try and get his costs back. And as the above post says, if the insurance company can get out of paying, they will.

that seems unlikely to me. Assuming she is fully insured, and the po po attended (which they would have - injury road crash) then if she is found to be at fault (as seems likely) then her insurance should cover her. Knock for knock does not apply so they should also indemnify for the damage caused. the only realistic way for them to deny would be on the basis of contributory negligence. It seems to me that the classic JRA U turn that would be difficult to establish.

Is your mate going to walk or roll out of Burwood? that, to me, is the larger question.

[jellywrestler]

I have a question for the collective genius that is KB.

Last Tuesday night my friend was involved in a pretty nasty crash in Christchurch.

He was riding his brand new S1000RR

did he test ride the Beemer? if so then the bike shop who let him do so on a restricted licence will know where he sits on this.

[HenryDorsetCase]

did he test ride the Beemer? if so then the bike shop who let him do so on a restricted licence will know where he sits on this.

"his brand new Beemer"

ouch.

[Asher]

Yea my understanding is they can't deny a claim for riding outside your license conditions unless that somehow contributed to the crash.

The popo aren't chasing him for being on the wrong license, i guess they figure having your heart almost stop when your lying on the road is punishment enough.

No spinal cord damage luckily

[R650R]

If it was his own insurance it would be an issue as he would have had to have supplied false information to insure something outside his own license.

But the case here is of someone elses negligence in running him over, he was just in the wrong place at wrong time. Its a civil matter really that she has damaged his property and that is what she is insured for.
The only out they would have would be if the crash related somehow to a provable amount that the motorcyclist was not properly in control of the bigger machine (which would be damn hard to prove in reality).

[MIXONE]

Where's Oscar when you need him?

[Gremlin]

Just remember his case is with the driver. He has no contract with the insurance company and it's only because she involves them that you deal with them.

He's not really "covered" as he doesn't have insurance, and now he's likely to find out how much fun it is dealing with them.

Provided he is not at fault (sounds likely) then licence doesn't come into it (of course, the cops can still ticket him for breaching his licence). Assuming the lady is at fault then the costs involved are at her feet.

[Oscar]

Where's Oscar when you need him?

In Melbourne.

The Insurance Law Reform Acts say that the insurer cannot rely on an exclusion to decline a claim unless that fact is material to the claim.

So if you have a car with no WOF and you're hit by a drunk driver whilst you're sitting at a stop sign, the insurer can't decline the claim based on the lack of a warrant on your car. In other words, the fact your car had no warrant was not the cause of the claim, so it is not germain.

However, in this case the insurer will likely say that since the BMW rider was not licenced for the vehicle he was on, it could have affected his ability to stop in time.
Notwithstanding that, he should get a lawyer, otherwise he may end up without a bike and paying for the old ladies damage.

[rastuscat]

In Melbourne.

The Insurance Law Reform Acts say that the insurer cannot rely on an exclusion to decline a claim unless that fact is material to the claim.

So if you have a car with no WOF and you're hit by a drunk driver whilst you're sitting at a stop sign, the insurer can't decline the claim based on the lack of a warrant on your car. In other words, the fact your car had no warrant was not the cause of the claim, so it is not germain.

However, in this case the insurer will likely say that since the BMW rider was not licenced for the vehicle he was on, it could have affected his ability to stop in time.
Notwithstanding that, he should get a lawyer, otherwise he may end up without a bike and paying for the old ladies damage.

Always good to see some informed comment.

Contributory negligence may enter the discussion if the bike can be shown to have been going too fast. It's possible to work that out from striations on the surface.

I'd argue it though. This happens far too often.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HenryDorsetCase]

Always good to see some informed comment.

Contributory negligence may enter the discussion if the bike can be shown to have been going too fast. It's possible to work that out from striations on the surface.

I'd argue it though. This happens far too often.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did mention I know the best insurance lawyer in the country?

Injury accident (quite serious): were SCU there? was the scene secured and examined and documented properly? Or just the poor sad bastard cop that got the call, with a notebook and a tape measure?

also: striations: in what? the rider's head?

[rastuscat]

Basically gouges on the road surface.

[mossy1200]

Basically gouges on the road surface.

Wow with New Zealand roads the slide was massive as shown by the AA slide guide based on gouge road length.



from:
Picton

to:
Christchurch CBD


time:

4 hours 45 mins


distance:

337km




New Calculation

Crash times and distances are approximate and allow for rest stops,gouge conditions, etc.


Your accident may vary.

[nzspokes]

were SCU there?

Dont expect SCU to have any clues.

[bsasuper]

I have been in the exact same situation and had to fight the other partys insurance all the way, it wasn't until I started court proceeding's against the car driver that I got a result. I have never been without insurance since.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Accidents involving more than one vehicle are never 100% a single drivers fault when you consider the human factors. The driver initiated the accident according to the OP. How the rider reacted both prior & after determined the outcome.

With experience and training observation, risk assessment, position & speed of what is happening around you prior to this event could have avoided or minimized the severity of the outcome. When a vehicle turns in front of a rider if the rider has not incorporated the risk into the riding plan the reaction time not only delays the response, they may not make the best decision on what to do (braking is not the only nor always the best response), nor may they have as many options available to them.

Other human factors were also likely at play here.for example: the rider was unfamiliar with the bike, it capabilities (braking characteristics for example) which only come with familiarity over time with the machine; they may not to have 100% of their time devoted to riding as they enjoyed their first ride on the new bike; the decision to ride at night on an unfamiliar bike increases risk; the riders probable lack of riding experience; the higher demands a bike like this requires from the rider.

[Mike.Gayner]

He doesn't have insurance as he is on his restricted. My understanding of the law means that as long as he is found to be not at fault him not being on the correct license isn't grounds for the drivers insurance not to pay out.

Anyone been in a similar situation or thinks they know if he's covered or not?

Absolutely correct and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I've been in a similar situation - he's risking getting a fine for riding outside license conditions, but otherwise will be covered by HER insurance company.

[R650R]

Accidents involving more than one vehicle are never 100% a single drivers fault when you consider the human factors. The driver initiated the accident according to the OP. How the rider reacted both prior & after determined the outcome.

With experience and training observation, risk assessment, position & speed of what is happening around you prior to this event could have avoided or minimized the severity of the outcome. When a vehicle turns in front of a rider if the rider has not incorporated the risk into the riding plan the reaction time not only delays the response, they may not make the best decision on what to do (braking is not the only nor always the best response), nor may they have as many options available to them.

Other human factors were also likely at play here.for example: the rider was unfamiliar with the bike, it capabilities (braking characteristics for example) which only come with familiarity over time with the machine; they may not to have 100% of their time devoted to riding as they enjoyed their first ride on the new bike; the decision to ride at night on an unfamiliar bike increases risk; the riders probable lack of riding experience; the higher demands a bike like this requires from the rider.

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

[bogan]

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

Perhaps not applicable in this case, but lets face it, neither is the advice of kb; dude needs to go get some actual legal advice.

"Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy" Seems like a good thing to be quoting to me, what's the problem?

[R650R]

Perhaps not applicable in this case, but lets face it, neither is the advice of kb; dude needs to go get some actual legal advice.

"Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy" Seems like a good thing to be quoting to me, what's the problem?

Your answer is in the other half of the sentence you quoted...

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

[R650R]

I agree with your argument as my riding ability has been attacked on this site after saying I was knocked off my bike by a dog who ran out so fast I did not have time to even brake.

I know a very experienced driver who did the same. The dog came out so fast he didn't see it but felt the impact and was worried it was one of a group of kids playing nearby. He still looked shaken up telling the story next day, you can't see every hazard.

[bogan]

Your answer is in the other half of the sentence you quoted...

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

And will that be supplied by kb? Nobody here can provide that, so providing advice to prevent future mishap is surely of benefit i would think.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

My post was not about the legal compensatory aspects. Being in the right and seriously injured/dead is not much comfort to you or those around you. When mistakes are made involving a rider, the rider risk of serious injury/death is much grater than that of the driver.



I know a very experienced driver who did the same. The dog came out so fast he didn't see it but felt the impact and was worried it was one of a group of kids playing nearby. He still looked shaken up telling the story next day, you can't see every hazard.

After an accident if we don't critically assess our riding we won't learn from it. Children playing by the roadside with animals unleashed. Ask yourself why did I not see the dog, children playing by the roadside - could I have stop in time if they run out, what was my position in the lane, what gear was I in, did I have my brakes covered, was I target fixated on the children playing, what else in this residential street should I be considering.

Observation and risk assessment needs to be incorporated into our riding. Experience helps develop these skills but only if we are open to critically assessing our riding. I have found it very valuable to get my riding assessed by a instructor, their critical eyes have identified areas I need to work on.

[R650R]

And will that be supplied by kb? Nobody here can provide that, so providing advice to prevent future mishap is surely of benefit i would think.



My post was not about the legal compensatory aspects.

The thread title was about insurance, if anyone wants to preach any relevant road safety issues so early on the y should preface their comment with suitable English indicating this desire :)

[Zarkov]

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

If old lady u-turner's insurance can show that motorbike guy was riding at high speed, I don't fancy his chances of getting paid out.

We all know that once you're way over the speed limit, all bets are off, same as if you're DUI.

As they should be.

[bogan]

The thread title was about insurance, if anyone wants to preach any relevant road safety issues so early on the y should preface their comment with suitable English indicating this desire :)

But the best form of accident insurance is ensuring you don't have one...

[Zarkov]

But it could be argued if he had been going even faster or slower the woman would have missed him. A case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could happen to any of us except those gifted with the ability to read other drivers minds in advance of their actions of course.

Or not.

Law in this regard is about probability, not reasonable doubt.

If you are speeding or drunk, you contribute to the accident.


It's fair, because if you are doing 160kph, it's not possible to safely make a u-turn anywhere in front of you..

[Flip]

I would think the rider is going to spend all he saved not having insurance on lawyers and court costs.

[Jantar]

Or not.

Law in this regard is about probability, not reasonable doubt.

If you are speeding or drunk, you contribute to the accident.


It's fair, because if you are doing 160kph, it's not possible to safely make a u-turn anywhere in front of you..

At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

Try using some science rather than propaganda.

[Daffyd]

But in this case the driver thought it was safe as they did not bother to look. Mind you the fact they were elderly could have been a factor in itself too eg a vision impairment or a slow ability to react. I can not see hoow there could be any contributory cause by the bike rider what so ever unless you believe their lack of a full licence was contributary? If the law believes that it is an ass.

Another possibility is if the driver was old she may have trouble turning her head far enough to see behind her. This doesn't seem to have been mentioned, but I find as I am getting older I cannot turn as far as I once could.

[Zarkov]

At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

Try using some science rather than propaganda.

The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

But it's not your fault.

[Coldrider]

The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

But it's not your fault.Speed was not mentioned in any post by the OP. You are posting so much crap that you are having problems separating fantasy from reality, just to bolster your keyboard skills.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Dont expect SCU to have any clues.

Not my experience. Both times I have dealt with them they have been very thorough, very professional, and focussed on what happened, not who to blame. the blame part came later.

[HenryDorsetCase]

At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

Try using some science rather than propaganda.

Jesus wept. this happened on Selwyn street. A 50kph street about a mile from where I live. depending where it might MIGHT have been a 60kph impact.

OP's mate is hella lucky that one of the first people on the scene was an RN who was very helpful by all accounts.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

But it's not your fault.

I think riding in town and having been a cyclist in town for years you do develop a spidey sense based on the working assumption that everyone IS trying to kill you. Driveways WILL have a fucktard backing out, Kids or pets WILL run onto the road. Any parked car can do anything at any time. with a pushbike you are going slower (but are closer to them) so you can assess if you can see people in it, whether the engine is running and crucially which way the wheels are pointing.... you do make similar assessments riding a motorcycle I think. Or at least I do.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If old lady u-turner's insurance can show that motorbike guy was riding at high speed, I don't fancy his chances of getting paid out.

We all know that once you're way over the speed limit, all bets are off, same as if you're DUI.

As they should be.

what will happen, I predict is that the loss adjusters will make the assertion, forcing OP to in effect reverse the burden of proof. As I said, I have a referral to an excellent specialist insurance lawyer who I fully recommend. Happy to refer other peeps to him also.

[Jantar]

Jesus wept. this happened on Selwyn street. A 50kph street about a mile from where I live. depending where it might MIGHT have been a 60kph impact.

OP's mate is hella lucky that one of the first people on the scene was an RN who was very helpful by all accounts.
Uhh? I didn't make any claim as to what speed the rider was doing. that post you quoted was in response to Zarkov's rediculous claim about someone being unable to do a U-turn anywhere if there is someone else doing 160 kmh 100 km away. I was merely showing that at Zorkov's claimed speed of 160 kmh it would still be safe to make a U-turn as long as there was at least 270m clear visibility.

[R650R]

Well my resident expert (over 20 years experience) is back from her international travels and says the old ladies insurance co will pay out.
As clearly she is in the wrong, him not having the right licence was not a factor in the crash.

[FJRider]

Being in the right and seriously injured/dead is not much comfort to you or those around you.

A simple fact that ALL motorcycle riders SHOULD consider .. Prior to and during each a every time they ride.


When mistakes are made involving a rider, the rider risk of serious injury/death is much grater than that of the driver.

A simple fact that ALL motorcycle riders SHOULD consider .. Prior to and during each a every time they ride.

To ALL that ride with NO insurance (in my opinion) are stupid. Insurance cover is by no means automatic (In ANY other party policy) ... regardless of fault (or not) of the rider.

Payouts in such cases rely more on luck than "as of (legal) right" ... and/or lengthy court cases .

[FJRider]

The problem is that insurance is becoming more and more of a rip off and people have no option but to cut back/do without if they are on a low income.

Some even "Cut back" by not paying rego and WOF ... :wink: Regardless of what some may think ... motorcycling (and motorcycle repairs) is not cheap.

Insurance may mean you still can afford to ride after even a minor accident/off ... if the rider is at fault. If court proceedings are required if the rider is not at fault ... the low income peebs may have no choice but waive any "rights" ... simply because they can't afford them.


Whether you decide to reduce your cover should be also influenced by your riding experience and how many days you ride a week.

Experience is no equalizer for the lack of ability of other motorists ... and only the stupid will believe so. A few that achieved their (new) full motorcycle license seem to believe they know it all already. Some getting their 6R believe similar.


I personally cut back due to the high cost of reg plus I now don't ride everyday plus I rarely ride in the wet now.

After reading some of the advice you've already given on THIS site ... the cutting back will be in your own best interests ... and .. SAFER for everybody else on the road.


I figure that if I was to get smashed up badly any insurance payout would be the least of my future worries anyway.

It matters little if it's the main (or least of your) worry ... it's still going to be a worry.

Get 3rd party insurance at the very least ... so if the fault is yours ... nobody will be chasing YOU for money.

[R650R]

Get 3rd party insurance at the very least ... so if the fault is yours ... nobody will be chasing YOU for money.

If it ever gets that bad all you have to do us set up a voluntary payment if 20 cents a week and they can't touch you. Haven't one it myself but know someone who did.