You may be better off if you're NOT insured

[klingon]

You may be better to have third party insurance only, if you get hit by another vehicle and it's not your fault.

My Volty is insured for $2000. That's below market value, but I was prepared to take the risk that if I did something stupid and crashed it, I would just have to live with the financial consequences. Basically I was backing myself to be a careful rider and not do stupid or dangerous things.

So on Monday I stopped at a stop sign (as you do). The car behind me didn't stop. She hit me hard enough to pitch me into the handlebars and send me and the bike crashing into the ground very hard. My bike sustained severe damage (to rear guard & light, headlight rim & mount, clutch lever, handle bars, bar end, front guard, indicators, shocks, gear lever, etc etc). The assessor is intending to write it off.

I did nothing wrong - the driver of the car is clearly liable. She is fully insured. But do I get a replacement bike to the same value as the one she just wrecked? No. I get a maximum of $2000 because that's what I insured my bike for.

I asked my insurance broker (John Baker Insurance) what would have happened if I had no insurance. The answer: I would get the pre-accident market value of the bike.

So I would have been financially better off to have been uninsured.

That sucks.

[Winter]

I dont know how much under market value that is, but If its any significant amount, you could try your luck at disputes tribunal - you'll never know untill you try.

[Karma]

Here's what I did... works a treat with insurance.

Value your bike at what it would cost to get a replacement. Easy done.

[riffer]

So I would have been financially better off to have been uninsured.


Or to have insured your bike for what its worth in the first place.

The lesson you have learned here is ...

[Steam]

Or to have insured your bike for what its worth in the first place.


I did that, then they changed the terms of the agreement by publishing a notice in the fracking newspaper, and I only learned they'd changed it when I read the fine print as I renewed it. So for a year I was only covered for second hand sale price. FUCKERS!
They are State insurance.

[Shadows]

I did that, then they changed the terms of the agreement by publishing a notice in the fracking newspaper, and I only learned they'd changed it when I read the fine print as I renewed it. So for a year I was only covered for second hand sale price. FUCKERS!
They are State insurance.

Second hand sale price would be the replacement value though. I don't see the problem with that.

Although I do agree that they are fuckers.

[BigG]

You may be better to have third party insurance only, if you get hit by another vehicle and it's not your fault.

My Volty is insured for $2000. That's below market value, but I was prepared to take the risk that if I did something stupid and crashed it, I would just have to live with the financial consequences. Basically I was backing myself to be a careful rider and not do stupid or dangerous things.

So on Monday I stopped at a stop sign (as you do). The car behind me didn't stop. She hit me hard enough to pitch me into the handlebars and send me and the bike crashing into the ground very hard. My bike sustained severe damage (to rear guard & light, headlight rim & mount, clutch lever, handle bars, bar end, front guard, indicators, shocks, gear lever, etc etc). The assessor is intending to write it off.

I did nothing wrong - the driver of the car is clearly liable. She is fully insured. But do I get a replacement bike to the same value as the one she just wrecked? No. I get a maximum of $2000 because that's what I insured my bike for.

I asked my insurance broker (John Baker Insurance) what would have happened if I had no insurance. The answer: I would get the pre-accident market value of the bike.

So I would have been financially better off to have been uninsured.

That sucks. You got to insure to what the vehicle is worth, cos if you insure it for more than its worth you will only get market value anyway, it certainly does suck if its not your fault but thats life, Always insure it for what its worth.:bye:

[klingon]

Or to have insured your bike for what its worth in the first place.

The lesson you have learned here is ...

I still would have been financially better off in this case if I had no insurance. I was under-insured because I couldn't afford the higher premiums to insure it for the replacement value. I would need to calculate the difference between the higher premiums and the actual value to tell you how much it would ahve worked out to, but it's basically:

BEST OPTION: No insurance (or third party only)
SECOND BEST OPTION: Pre-accident market value
WORST OPTION: Full insurance, but less than market value

My sister was hit by a car when riding her Harley some years ago. The car driver admitted full responsibility and my sister (who was not insured) got her bike repaired to its pre-accident condition and got all her damaged gear replaced by the car driver's insurance.

[Grumpy Gnomb]

I suppose not insuring your bike for what it is worth is like gambling as if you roll the dice and you win everything is good but if you lose it hurts like hell and you are looking for someone to blame.

[Mole_C]

Could you try take it up directly with the other insurance company and leave yours out of it to try get full value? Could be a pain but could be worth a shot?

[klingon]

I just want to clarify something here...

I'm not actually advocating riding without insurance. It's just that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I would be financially better off if I had not insured the bike at all, compared to where I am now. I would get enough money to replace my bike with another one in a similar condition, and I would still have my premium in my pocket.

I had chosen to take the risk that if I crashed my bike and it was my fault, that I would be out of pocket. Deservedly so. I did not have any idea that this also limited the liability of someone else who failed to stop and ran into me.

Now that I know this, I will make a different decision in the future.

[Scorpygirl]

I guess this is the juggling act you have to play with insurance. No insurance and you have an accident and it is your fault then you are paying, paying, paying!! If you have no insurance and you have an accident with no other vehicle involved then there is no money and no replacement. Yes, it is your decision as to the premium vs market/below market value. But one trades off the other in a situation like this. Sorry.

[slowpoke]

For my 2 cents worth, when you signed the insurance agreement you agreed your bike was only worth $2000, end of story. Nowhere is there a box to fill out saying "partial replacement cost".
You took the risk, as you said yourself, and unfortunately it hasn't paid off.

[klingon]

I dont know how much under market value that is, but If its any significant amount, you could try your luck at disputes tribunal - you'll never know untill you try.

I'm considering several options. I may take it up with the other insurance company or directly with the car driver. She was so very clearly in the wrong that she may have the human decency to make up the difference. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still like to believe in decency and goodwill.


Could you try take it up directly with the other insurance company and leave yours out of it to try get full value? Could be a pain but could be worth a shot?

Apparently you are legally obliged to claim against your own insurance if you have it. When the woman at John Baker Insurance told me that I would have been better off to have no insurance, I said "ok then, I hereby withdraw my claim!" She got very edgy and said "You can't do that! That's illegal! You'd have to tell lies to the other insurance company!"

[Shadows]

It is all just a numbers game. A bit of a gamble. You traded off insured value for reduced premiums. It could have worked out, but in this case the gamble didn't pay off.
I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, but I think you'll just have to suck it up.

[Jantar]

Apparently you are legally obliged to claim against your own insurance if you have it. When the woman at John Baker Insurance told me that I would have been better off to have no insurance, I said "ok then, I hereby withdraw my claim!" She got very edgy and said "You can't do that! That's illegal! You'd have to tell lies to the other insurance company!"
No, I believe that you are entitled to NOT make a claim with your insurance company. You must advise them of the accident, but you don't have to make a claim. Similarly, you don't have to deal with the cage drivers insurance company, and therefore you don't have to tell lies. You are entitled to deal directly with the other driver, it is her option to deal with their insurance company if she wishes, but you are quite entitled to only deal with the driver of the other vehicle.

[McJim]

You would have saved money by insuring it for less than it's true value - unfortunately this is the pay back from that saving.

The issue is that you gave an incorrect appraisal of the bike's market value and now you're paying for it - I feel your pain really I do but this is a little bit of your own making.

As for riding with 3rd party insurance - ever been hit by an uninsured fuckwit in a 300hp skyline? Insurance is needed.

[Rhino]

For my 2 cents worth, when you signed the insurance agreement you agreed your bike was only worth $2000, end of story. Nowhere is there a box to fill out saying "partial replacement cost".
You took the risk, as you said yourself, and unfortunately it hasn't paid off.
I'm sorry Klingon, but I have to agree with Slowpoke. You made the choice to insure your bike for $2000, knowing that figure was below market value.:yes:

In the situation that occured, yes you would have got market value payout from the other persons insurance company, as they were in the wrong.

No insurance may look like a good idea, but imagine the boot on the other foot. You hit another vehicle and are in the wrong with no insurance. The other persons bike gets written off (or repaired) and their insurance company pays them out, then chases you for the money. If you had hit my 'Wing, they would be looking for over $30k at replacement value.:gob:

Do you want to take the risk of riding/driving an uninsured vehicle?

[Sanx]

Apparently you are legally obliged to claim against your own insurance if you have it. When the woman at John Baker Insurance told me that I would have been better off to have no insurance, I said "ok then, I hereby withdraw my claim!" She got very edgy and said "You can't do that! That's illegal! You'd have to tell lies to the other insurance company!"

Bullshit. And you wouldn't have to tell lies to the other insurance company. If they ask if you were insured, then tell them you were, but you choose not to make a claim against your insurance - you want to sort it out directly. That's your right. There's no requirement that says you must claim on your insurance if there's an accident.


I did that, then they changed the terms of the agreement by publishing a notice in the fracking newspaper, and I only learned they'd changed it when I read the fine print as I renewed it. So for a year I was only covered for second hand sale price. FUCKERS!
They are State insurance.

Check the terms of your policy again. I think you'll find that if they wish to change the terms or conditions of the policy, or adjust your premium, they have to give you 14 days notice at your last known address. Taking an ad out in the paper does not fulfill this condition. They'll try it on (as they did with my other half a couple of years back) but they'll eventually back down.

If you ever have to deal with State insurance, try to tape every phone call. If not, get the name of every person you deal with and write down what happened in each call immediately afterwards. Keep every bit of correspondence, and should you send anything to them, post it with track'n'trace.

State are a bunch of lying cheating cunts who'll try to get away with anything and everything.

[What?]

The real fun would start when your uninsured vehicle is demolished by another uninsured vehicle.

[yungatart]

The real fun would start when your uninsured vehicle is demolished by another uninsured vehicle.

...or when you third party insured vehicle is hit by a third party insured vehicle especially if it is the same company....they won't pay out unless the other party admits liability!

[jetboy]

Hi, I am a broker at John Baker Insurance.

1) You need to insure the bike for it's replacement value. If you insure a vehicle worth $10,000 for $5,000 - then in the event of a claim you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay $10,000 for the vehicle.

2) If you make a claim with an insurer and then decide to withdraw half way through, you must still tell any other insurer you contact for a quote/insurance that you have lodged(and then withdrawn) a claim, and that you have been involved in an accident. Most insurers have this question on their proposal form.

3) If you decide to contact the third party's insurance whether or not this third party is at fault, their insurer will ask if you have insurance, and why you are not claiming on your policy. They will then, most likely, tell you to claim on your policy.

[MWVT]

To my mind Klingon made an agreement with the insurance company on the 'insured value' of the motorcycle. I would have thought an at fault third party would have had to reinstate the damage (regardless of the scale of Klingons' policy) either personally or using their insurance.

I'm happy to concede i'm in error, if there is fine print along these lines......
Any information in this insurance application is disclosable to a third party.... blah blah blah..... and you waive any claim to more than the insured sum, including from a third party.

[steved]

Hi, I am a broker at John Baker Insurance.

1) You need to insure the bike for it's replacement value. If you insure a vehicle worth $10,000 for $5,000 - then in the event of a claim you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay $10,000 for the vehicle.

2) If you make a claim with an insurer and then decide to withdraw half way through, you must still tell any other insurer you contact for a quote/insurance that you have lodged(and then withdrawn) a claim, and that you have been involved in an accident. Most insurers have this question on their proposal form.

3) If you decide to contact the third party's insurance whether or not this third party is at fault, their insurer will ask if you have insurance, and why you are not claiming on your policy. They will then, most likely, tell you to claim on your policy.

1. Why? What has this to do with her insurance policy? If someone else hits me and damages my bike, they are replacing my bike. What insurance I have is irrelevant.

3. The insurance company can ask what they like but the reality is their client is claiming for their mistake. Klingon has done nothing wrong.


I'm a bit amazed that most people seem to think that Klingon has done something wrong. The value or whether she has any insurance is completely irrelevant in this case.

[jetboy]

G'day mate,

First of all, I'm not saying klingon is "wrong" as such, just pointing out why we did what we did.

1. That is correct - she can do what she likes. We are simply pointing out that she has lodged a claim. Yes, she has withdrawn it, but she still needs to tell any insurer she has been in an accident and lodged (and withdrawn a claim). Is klingon does not want us to help her with her claim, that's fine. We act under instruction from the client. But when she approaches the other insurer they will ask "Do you have insurance?". If she says "No" then she is not being honest, the insurer will find out if she has insurance or not and then she won't get anything. If she says "yes" then the insurer will tell her to contact us. We are happy to stay out of it, but the other insurer will ask those questions.

2. Whether or not klingon is "not at fault" is irrelevant as to which questions the third party's insurer will ask. If she tells the other insurer that she has no insurance and they do not discover that she actually has, they will still get pre-accident valuations on the bike to determine its market value.

Our job is to handle the claim on her behalf. We work for her. But we cannot pay out more than what the bike is worth. If the bike is worth $2,000 (as determined by independant pre-accident valuations) then this is the reimbursement she should be expecting.


You may be better to have third party insurance only, if you get hit by another vehicle and it's not your fault.


What happens if the person who hits you does not have insurance?

Some policies have an "uninsured third party" extension with a small limit in the policy to cover this, but what if this extension does not cover the complete value of the bike?

[steved]

Our job is to handle the claim on her behalf. We work for her. But we cannot pay out more than what the bike is worth. If the bike is worth $2,000 (as determined by independant pre-accident valuations) then this is the reimbursement she should be expecting.

Cheers for the response. I agree with your points about claiming then withdrawing the claim.

However, I fail to understand why you (her insurer) are paying anything to her. It is the responsibility of the other party or their insurance company to restore her damaged property. I assume this is the track she is now following?

[jetboy]

Cheers for the response. I agree with your points about claiming then withdrawing the claim.

However, I fail to understand why you (her insurer) are paying anything to her. It is the responsibility of the other party or their insurance company to restore her damaged property. I assume this is the track she is now following?
No worries :)

I will quote our policy wording which may clarify this situation:

"Section 6 - Claims Conditions

It is a precedent to the Company's liability that the following conditions must be complied with:-
......
1 b: ii as soon as possible inform the nearest office of the Company and complete a claim form and deliver it to the Company.
.....
8. If the Company covers the Insured for any loss or liability it shall be entitled to instigate, take over or defend any legal proceeding in the name of the Insured, including any claim or counterclaim, and shall have full discretion to conduct or settle such proceedings;"

When you sign a proposal you are legaly bound to the terms of the policy. So in the wording extracts above, we are entitled to handle the claim and have full discretion in doing so.

If she does not want us involved, she has to sign a statutory declaration (read: legal document) to say she does not hold comprehensive insurance. If she is not honest on this form she is making an illegal action.

It sounds more dramatic than it is.

I can't fathom why she does not want us to help her with the claim - either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations.

[steved]

No worries :)

I can't fathom why she does not want us to help her with the claim - either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations.

Appreciated. I know this is a curly question, but what is/was the market value of her bike? What is a Volty worth?

[jetboy]

Appreciated. I know this is a curly question, but what is/was the market value of her bike? What is a Volty worth?
I am afraid you would need to ask klingon that question - I don't want to disclose any particulars surrounding the claim.

I can tell you, however, that we get two independant valuations on the bike which is what we extract the market value from. We are only mere insurance brokers not bike valuers- to be honest I would'nt have a clue what a Volty is worth! That's why we call in the professionals.

When a client completes a proposal we ask for the market value of the bike. We rely on you, the client, to tell us what to insure it for. We do as you tell us, basically :)

[quackquack]

I have to say insure it for what it is worth and then add a high excess on that. This means if you are Hit the other persons insurance pays for it if you have a crash you are liable only for the first $2000 or whatever you make your excess.

You then have the best of both worlds and don't have the problem. You now are having

[Sanx]

I also agree that the situation is of Klingon's making ... however:


1. That is correct - she can do what she likes. We are simply pointing out that she has lodged a claim. Yes, she has withdrawn it, but she still needs to tell any insurer she has been in an accident and lodged (and withdrawn a claim). Is klingon does not want us to help her with her claim, that's fine. We act under instruction from the client. But when she approaches the other insurer they will ask "Do you have insurance?". If she says "No" then she is not being honest, the insurer will find out if she has insurance or not and then she won't get anything. If she says "yes" then the insurer will tell her to contact us. We are happy to stay out of it, but the other insurer will ask those questions.

Provided Klingon's honest with the third party, then she shouldn't have a problem. They may very well tell her to make a claim on her insurance, but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to. The third party insurer may not like it, but they will still have to sort out the claim.

Klingon has no contractual relationship with the third party insurer (assuming, of course, the third party is not insured with the same insurer) and they therefore cannot insist she do anything. They can make life bloody difficult, but they'll have to deal with it eventually especially if Klingon wants to take it through the dispute tribunal or small claims courts.

As has been said though - all this could have been avoided quite easily by simply insuring the bike for what it was worth.

[jetboy]

I also agree that the situation is of Klingon's making ... however:



Provided Klingon's honest with the third party, then she shouldn't have a problem. They may very well tell her to make a claim on her insurance, but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to. The third party insurer may not like it, but they will still have to sort out the claim.

Klingon has no contractual relationship with the third party insurer (assuming, of course, the third party is not insured with the same insurer) and they therefore cannot insist she do anything. They can make life bloody difficult, but they'll have to deal with it eventually especially if Klingon wants to take it through the dispute tribunal or small claims courts.

As has been said though - all this could have been avoided quite easily by simply insuring the bike for what it was worth.
I hate to say it but this is incorrect.

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss. She cannot truthfully sign this document.

klingon does not have a contractual relationship with the third party insurer, but she does with her insurer - in this case, us.

Again, I cannot understand one's logic for choosing to bypass us (?!?!) as we work for the client. The only way (as far as I can see) for her to bypass us is to approach the third party direct - but chances are the third party will involve their insurer...would'nt you?

She will have more luck in recovering her costs through us then if she went out on her own.


but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to
Yes, there is - I will cut/paste an extract from page 2 of this thread:

"Section 6 - Claims Conditions

It is a precedent to the Company's liability that the following conditions must be complied with:-
......
1 b: ii as soon as possible inform the nearest office of the Company and complete a claim form and deliver it to the Company.
.....
8. If the Company covers the Insured for any loss or liability it shall be entitled to instigate, take over or defend any legal proceeding in the name of the Insured, including any claim or counterclaim, and shall have full discretion to conduct or settle such proceedings;"

Why would one want to bypass their insurer? If the accident is not your fault then there is no loss of no claims bonus, no excess payable and we recover as much of your loss as we can.

[Toaster]

Here's what I did... works a treat with insurance.

Value your bike at what it would cost to get a replacement. Easy done.

Exactly. Wise words and an obviously sensible answer.

[JimBob]

Interesting
A couple of things you could clarify please
Is Klingon required to make a claim with her own insurance company?
Does having insurance and making a claim stop her from claiming from the other driver the difference between the insurance payout and market value?

I would of thought that in the first instance her claim was against the other driver. If she doesnt wish to pursue that she can claim against her insurance company.

"either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations" isnt this the problem, she wont? (assuming mv is more than $2000)
I can certainly see if she was the only one involved, she only gets what she insured the bike for, but when someone else is involved their insurance should pay out market value. Arent you effectively claiming from the other insurance company on her behalf? and if the other party has normal 3rd party it will cover the volty at market value irrespective of her insurance with you?
1st party is the other driver, 2nd party is their insurer, 3rd party is klingon for whom you are acting?

Thanks for the info

[jetboy]

Is Klingon required to make a claim with her own insurance company?

Generally - yes. Sometimes you are able to settle "out of insurance" if both parties agree to the outcome of the settlement. In this case the insurers will no doubt be involved...if I were the third party I would definitely claim on my insurance!


Does having insurance and making a claim stop her from claiming from the other driver the difference between the insurance payout and market value?


In most cases the payout will be the market value or the sum insured as stated in the insurance schedule (provided to your insurance company by you), whichever is the lesser. So if you have the correct market value listed then there is no need to claim on any difference, because there won't be any. We will assist our clients in recovering the outstanding amount in the event that we have been provided an incorrect market value - but the most the other insurer will pay is market value.


I would of thought that in the first instance her claim was against the other driver. If she doesnt wish to pursue that she can claim against her insurance company.

That is correct - but once the other driver gets their insurer involved then it becomes an insurance matter.


"either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations" isnt this the problem, she wont? (assuming mv is more than $2000)

You would need to refer to klingon for the market value of her bike. I am unable to disclose this information.


I can certainly see if she was the only one involved, she only gets what she insured the bike for, but when someone else is involved their insurance should pay out market value. Arent you effectively claiming from the other insurance company on her behalf? and if the other party has normal 3rd party it will cover the volty at market value irrespective of her insurance with you?

Correct - to a degree. If the market value of the bike is more than the insured value then we would do everything we can to recover the difference...and it is likely the other insurer would co-operate. If the bike was written off she is also entitled to the value of the wreck. Remember - she will not be paid more than the market value.


1st party is the other driver, 2nd party is their insurer, 3rd party is klingon for whom you are acting?

To us the first party is klingon, third party is the other driver. Vice versa with the other insurer.

[Sanx]

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss. She cannot truthfully sign this document.

I'd like to see the basis for that requirement. Is it a requirement in law, or do insurance companies just require you to sign it before they'll process the claim. I simply cannot see why there should be a law governing that people address claims through there insurance companies. There are plenty of decent reasons why I might not choose to go through my insurer should I suffer a loss, fault or no fault.

Klingon may be asked to sign a statutory declaration stating she has no comprehensive insurance - and signing it saying she does not would be an offence. However, I don't believe she can have her claim refused simply because she chooses not to go through her own insurance.


Again, I cannot understand one's logic for choosing to bypass us (?!?!) as we work for the client. The only way (as far as I can see) for her to bypass us is to approach the third party direct - but chances are the third party will involve their insurer...would'nt you?

I agree fully. I was speaking in general terms about insurers, rather than your good selves. As most people know, for the vast majority of insurance firms, their customers' needs and wishes come pretty far down the list of factors to consider.


Yes, there is - I will cut/paste an extract from page 2 of this thread:

"Section 6 - Claims Conditions

It is a precedent to the Company's liability that the following conditions must be complied with:-
......
1 b: ii as soon as possible inform the nearest office of the Company and complete a claim form and deliver it to the Company.
.....
8. If the Company covers the Insured for any loss or liability it shall be entitled to instigate, take over or defend any legal proceeding in the name of the Insured, including any claim or counterclaim, and shall have full discretion to conduct or settle such proceedings;"

By not lodging a claim(or in this case withdrawing it), she's absolving her insurance company of any liability. If the insurance company does not have liability, then this clause does not apply.


Why would one want to bypass their insurer? If the accident is not your fault then there is no loss of no claims bonus, no excess payable and we recover as much of your loss as we can.

Agreed. I can't see why anyone would bypass their insurance company. or, for that matter, why one would insure a bike for less than its market worth.

[Jantar]

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss.
Not correct at all. If she choses to deal directly with the other party, she is quite entitled to. The other party may have a clause in their insurance which allows their insurer to deal on their behalf, but Klingon can not be held party to an agreement between that other party and their insurance company.

If you believe that it is a legal requirement for Klingon to sign such a declaration, please refer us to the relevent legislation. Note I said "Legislation" not "Insurance Company Requirements".

[jetboy]

I'd like to see the basis for that requirement. Is it a requirement in law, or do insurance companies just require you to sign it before they'll process the claim. I simply cannot see why there should be a law governing that people address claims through there insurance companies. There are plenty of decent reasons why I might not choose to go through my insurer should I suffer a loss, fault or no fault.

Klingon may be asked to sign a statutory declaration stating she has no comprehensive insurance - and signing it saying she does not would be an offence. However, I don't believe she can have her claim refused simply because she chooses not to go through her own insurance.


The form must be signed in conjunction with the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. This document must be signed infront of a JP. Because of the way insurance works behind the scenes you must go through your insurer.


I agree fully. I was speaking in general terms about insurers, rather than your good selves. As most people know, for the vast majority of insurance firms, their customers' needs and wishes come pretty far down the list of factors to consider.

...which is why you deal with a wonderful guy like me :)


By not lodging a claim(or in this case withdrawing it), she's absolving her insurance company of any liability. If the insurance company does not have liability, then this clause does not apply.

It is not that simple unfortunately. This all depends on when a client withdraws a claim (if at all), and the circumstances. I will not go too much into this.

Hope this clarifies things.

[JimBob]

hey Jetboy
thanks for that. Makes sense to me.
So really the fact Klingon has underinsured her bike in this case is neither here nor there. You would be liable for a max of $2000 and if the market value of her bike was more than you will assist her to recover the difference from the other party.
Sounds fair enough to me.
cheers
(I hope I got that right)

[jetboy]

Not correct at all. If she choses to deal directly with the other party, she is quite entitled to. The other party may have a clause in their insurance which allows their insurer to deal on their behalf, but Klingon can not be held party to an agreement between that other party and their insurance company.

If you believe that it is a legal requirement for Klingon to sign such a declaration, please refer us to the relevent legislation. Note I said "Legislation" not "Insurance Company Requirements".
Ok guys I am pulling the plug on this set of questions. I am not a lawyer - ask one if you want exact legislation.

All I am saying is the insurer requires you to sign the declaration. If you lie on the declaration then you are being dishonest and charges can be bought about, claims are voided etc.

You need to know how insurance works behind the scenes to fully understand why insurers have requirements like this.

Besides (again), why would you want to bypass your insurer? What good does that do?

[Matt_TG]

I am an Insurance Loss Adjuster, and must admit to only skimming over the previous posts, but I will make this comment..

You are NOT obliged to claim on your own insurance, however you then take matters into your own hands and cannot rely on your insurers to sort matters out in a timely and cost effective manner.

You ARE however uninsured ... for the value of the bike over and above what you covered it for. Remember you are also uninsured for your excess. So you can lawfully sign a declaration of non - insurance for the part of the risk you were carrying yourself.

You could argue therefore that the third party insurer's obligation is to pay YOU the uninsured amount first (excess and value over $2,000) then your insurers can under subrogation, recover what they feel they are entitled to from the third party insurer.

Then you need to factor in what the wreck's worth, as if you are not indemnified completely you may be entitled to proceeds from its sale...

[Grahameeboy]

Is it an agreed value policy? If not check what your policy wording says. If it says 'Market Value' which is $2,500, I am not sure the Insurers can argue (they will) about paying you $2,500 because they say they will pay market value but check General Conditions.

At end of day you declared the value as your estimated one.

It is worth checking.


.


Then you need to factor in what the wreck's worth, as if you are not indemnified completely you may be entitled to proceeds from its sale...

To clarify, say bike is worth $3,000, you get $2,000 and the salvage is worth say $250 you will get the max of the difference between the insured value and the market value but no more, in this case $250.

But the Insurer will incur a salvage fee which they will deduct so you are better off just keeping the bike.

Just had a sqeeze through the policy wording and it does say max payable is the market value or sum insured which ever is the lesser.....a lot of private cage Insurance do not have this.

But the 'Sum Insured' does not include GST (Limits do because they are a max) so this should be added to the $2,000 so you are entitled to a max of $2,250 plus and salvage entitlement under 'Old English Law'

[Matt_TG]

Just had a sqeeze through the policy wording and it does say max payable is the market value or sum insured which ever is the lesser.....a lot of private cage Insurance do not have this.

But the 'Sum Insured' does not include GST (Limits do because they are a max) so this should be added to the $2,000 so you are entitled to a max of $2,250 plus and salvage entitlement under 'Old English Law'

Well said that man.

Also if that's still not enough to meet the value of the bike you shouldn't have to pay the excess, as effectively that's the first part of any loss, and you've worn that. Then keep the bike and sell its parts off.

[gunnyrob]

I've just gotta say that you have to insure your bike for what it's worth. After looking around, John Baker insurance offers some pretty good deals compared to others. (BMW wanted $890, Jetboy sorted me for $700) :rockon:

BTW I'll never deal with state again. Rip off ba$tard$

[Thumper]

Having skimmed through this thread I feel compelled to add my 2c worth. Surly things are much simpler than they seem.

1. The third party has driven into Klingon’s bike and has admitted fault.

2. Klingon may choose not to make a claim against her own policy as many of us do when we weigh up paying an excess and loosing a no-claim discount’s etc. etc..

3. Klingon’s claim is against the third party to return the motorcycle to its pre-accident condition.

4. At this stage the third party may run off to their own insurance company but Klingon is under no obligation to engage the third parties insurance company. There is no obligation to sign any forms, complete any questionnaires or even speak to the third parties insurance party because as already stated, Klingon’s claim is not against the agent of the third party but the third party themselves.

I admit that its probably a whole lot more difficult to try and get full replacement value directly from the third party yourself (short of sending round some big fellas) and this is the service that insurance brokers are offering as part of the service you pay for (not the big fellas).

Otherwise you could get a quote or two from the local bike shops to replace or repair your bike then go around to the third parties home with your paperwork and demand that they cover the costs realising you are more than likely going to end up pursuing your claim in the courts without the support of your insurance company or broker.

Ok so it was only 1c worth.........

[Crazy Steve]

Thanks to everyone who has been asking these questions in my absence. They are exactly the questions I have been trying to find answers for. And thanks Jetboy for answering them. I have found your answers to be careful and helpful.

It's quite unfortunate that all these things need to happen so quickly. I was concussed in the accident (I feel like I'm trying to think through a wall of cotton wool). I am also not a lawyer, and I am trying very hard to understand the complexities of insurance law while trying to get a working bike!

I think I need to clarify a few things:

1) I did not withdraw my insurance claim from John Baker insurance. When I was told by the person on the phone that I would have been better off to have been uninsured, I said I would like to withdraw my claim. She told me that I could not do that without lying to the other party's insurer. After reading Jetboy's answers above, I am still confused about whether this is the case.

2) I have absolutely no intention of lying to anybody. I don't believe I need to lie to anybody, because the facts are on my side and I have done nothing wrong.

3)
For my 2 cents worth, when you signed the insurance agreement you agreed your bike was only worth $2000, end of story. Nowhere is there a box to fill out saying "partial replacement cost".
Actually, the Motorcycle Insurance Proposal form I filled in when I applied for insurance asks me for the "sum insured." Nowhere does it ask me for the full market value of the bike.


I'm sorry Klingon, but I have to agree with Slowpoke. You made the choice to insure your bike for $2000, knowing that figure was below market value.:yes:
...
Do you want to take the risk of riding/driving an uninsured vehicle?
As I said before, I am not advocating riding an uninsured bike. I am simply pointing out that in this particular case I would have been better off if I had been uninsured.


To my mind Klingon made an agreement with the insurance company on the 'insured value' of the motorcycle. I would have thought an at fault third party would have had to reinstate the damage (regardless of the scale of Klingons' policy) either personally or using their insurance.

I'm happy to concede i'm in error, if there is fine print along these lines......
Any information in this insurance application is disclosable to a third party.... blah blah blah..... and you waive any claim to more than the insured sum, including from a third party.

Exactly my point. There was nothing on the application form that said this.


Yep, bingo. Unless you have endorsements (DG, etc), which expire more often.

Some endorsements expire when your licence does..So no Etc!!

Crazy Steve..


Thnks for the replies. Next question then.

LTSA says it costs about $40 to renew a license. Does this cover all the classes you hold or do you have to pay that amount for each class?

One amount for all Classes..

But with 2,3,4,5 you will need a Doctors cert..Which will cost around $55..

Crazy Steve


FWIK it applies to your licence in general, not the specific classes. Same sort of thing when you lose your licence, applies to all classes.

Well not really...

You can lose you HT licence for Log book infrigments..

But you are still able to drive your Car or Ride your bike..Providing you have 1,2,3,4,5,6...


Crazy Steve

[klingon]

Regarding market value:

I am afraid you would need to ask klingon that question - I don't want to disclose any particulars surrounding the claim.

I can tell you, however, that we get two independant valuations on the bike which is what we extract the market value from. We are only mere insurance brokers not bike valuers- to be honest I would'nt have a clue what a Volty is worth! That's why we call in the professionals.

When a client completes a proposal we ask for the market value of the bike. We rely on you, the client, to tell us what to insure it for. We do as you tell us, basically :)

Thank you for your discrestion here, Jetboy. I am happy to discuss the value of my bike on this forum. I have spoken to the assessor who says its market value is $2000 and I made it clear to him that I am going to dispute this assessment.

As I said before, the the proposal asked me for the insured sum of the bike, not the market value.

My bike is a 1995 Suzuki Volty (TU250) in black, with a black leather seat. All the chrome is intact (I should say WAS... until Monday). The bike has been kept in a garage, recently serviced, new tyres etc. There is a picture of it in my profile pic.

A black Volty sold on Trademe yesterday for $3000. It sold before I could go and look at it, but from the pictures it looks pretty much identical to mine. Here's a link: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=98657546

I spoke to Alistair Henwood at Colemans (where the Volty is now) and he said the pre-accident market value of my bike was $3000. He said he would be happy to write me a signed letter stating that value. I'm going to pick up the letter tomorrow.

I'm surprised that the assessor didn't ask me to provide any photos of the bike before the accident, or any service history. I intend to continue my discussions with him on Monday.


Our job is to handle the claim on her behalf. We work for her. But we cannot pay out more than what the bike is worth. If the bike is worth $2,000 (as determined by independant pre-accident valuations) then this is the reimbursement she should be expecting.

I'm glad to hear you will be handling the claim on my behalf. So if I can provide you with evidence that the bike will cost more than $2000 to replace, you will claim that much on my behalf from the other party's insurance company?


I can't fathom why she does not want us to help her with the claim - either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations.

I would very much like you to help me with the claim. The only reason I attempted (unsuccessfully) to withdraw the claim was because I was told that if there was a difference between the insured value of the bike and the market value, I would have been better off to have been uninsured.

If you will be acting on my behalf, then I am very happy to provide you with additional information about the true cost of replacing my bike with one in a similar condition.

And if anyone knows of a Volty for sale in the Auckland area, with no rust or crash damage, mid-90s vintage, PLEASE get in touch with me and/or Jetboy. If I can buy it for $2000 or less I will be delighted to accept the insurance company's offer and get back on the road as soon as possible. If it's more than $2000 I'm sure my ever-helpful insurance company will pay the difference.

[jetboy]

I'm glad to hear you will be handling the claim on my behalf. So if I can provide you with evidence that the bike will cost more than $2000 to replace, you will claim that much on my behalf from the other party's insurance company?


As your bike was insured for $2,000 we will base our claim on this value, however we will definitely attempt to recover for the extra $1,000 from the other insurance company on your behalf, as we would to any "un-insured" loss any of our clients suffer.

[JimBob]

And something else to be aware of is market value and replacement value are two different things from an insurance point of view

[jetboy]

klingon I have sent you a PM on how to proceed from here.
Hopefully we can resolve this issue so all parties are happy :)

Let me know if you have any further questions - I have provided my direct contact details on the PM.

Tim

[klingon]

Thanks Tim, I'm very grateful for your help. :)

[R6_kid]

If you had it insured for $20k would they have given you $20k payout at writeoff?

You would have been paying premiums for a $20k bike so i would have thought you would get the $20k... I dont think the insurance comany would see it as such if your bike was only worth $2k and they give you $20k...

I guess if you fiddle the number sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you lose out.

Also it would be worth asking what would happen if you insured it for $2k and market value was less than that, then what would they pay? If they say market value then take it to court/tribunal - they can't have double standards.

[jetboy]

If you had it insured for $20k would they have given you $20k payout at writeoff?

You would have been paying premiums for a $20k bike so i would have thought you would get the $20k... I dont think the insurance comany would see it as such if your bike was only worth $2k and they give you $20k...

I guess if you fiddle the number sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you lose out.

Also it would be worth asking what would happen if you insured it for $2k and market value was less than that, then what would they pay? If they say market value then take it to court/tribunal - they can't have double standards.
I think you are missing the point here Mr R6 kid...Here is an extract from the insurance council website (www.icnz.org.nz) which may clarify things for you:

<<----->>


Insurance exists to protect your possessions against unforeseen loss or damage. Whether you're insuring your house, car or CD collection, the basic idea is that you pay an annual premium and your insurance company will pay to replace or repair whatever items are insured if lost or damaged.

An insurance policy is a legally binding contract that demands complete honesty from both parties. If you lie or mislead your insurance company, your policy can be declared void. Likewise, if your insurance company doesn't treat you fairly, you can take your case to court or to the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman.

The underlying principle of any insurance contract is to enable you to be in the same position you were in before a loss. This is because if you were in a better position after an insurance claim there would be a financial incentive to make claims.


<<---->>

We rely on you, the insured, to tell us what your contents/car/boat/bike...whatever...is worth. Remember, we are insurance brokers not vehicle valuers. Some of us wouldnt have a clue what any particular vehicle is worth.

Does this make a bit more sense?

[jimbo600]

Here's what I did... works a treat with insurance.

Value your bike at what it would cost to get a replacement. Easy done.

You can insure it for $1,000,000 and all they'll pay is current market value for the condition of the bike with that amount of K's on it. Insured value means fuck all.

[Cr1MiNaL]

well im not so sure ud be sayin that if ur bike were worth 15k and not 2 k aye!?

[slopster]

Why don't you just cancel your insurance now because you are not happy with how the company is treating you. Then you can quite honestly say that your not insured and it will be up to the other person and their insurance to sort you out.

[klingon]

Why don't you just cancel your insurance now because you are not happy with how the company is treating you. Then you can quite honestly say that your not insured and it will be up to the other person and their insurance to sort you out.

Apparently it doesn't work like that. If you had insurance at the time of the accident, you have to use it.

And just as a footnote, since Jetboy became involved and has taken the time to respond to all my questions, I'm much happier with the way my insurance company has handled it. Also apparently the same rules apply with all other insurance companies so it's not a case of how my insurance company is treating me - it's a case of insurance in general treating you like that.

The point of this thread was to draw people's attention to the fact that in a situation like this you're better off to be uninsured than to be under-insured. I had no idea that this was the case beforehand, and I hope others can learn from my unhappy experience.

As Jetboy has since clarified, there are circumstances where you can take a case for "uninsured loss" against the other party for the difference between your insured value and your true loss, but that's much more complicated and in my case I've decided it's not worth the hassle.

So my final decision has been to accept the $2000 as offered by the insurance company, and use it to get my bike roadworthy (although of course not back to its original condition).

[Pancakes]

The first point that seems to pain everyone is you have 3 choices, insure for more and pay more in premiums but only get the market value if you claim OR insure for less and then the insurance is more of a crash subsidy that cover. 3) Get your bike valued constantly and keep on adjusting your cover. I doubt it, I bought my bike for $6200 11 months ago and it's probably worth $4200 now if I had 7 days to turn it to cash.

I am currently mid-insurance claim, here's how it's going;

I went to BP in Hobsonville on Mothers Day and my bike was damaged due to a fairly large diesel spill on the forecourt (no I didn't ride through it, the bike was parked and off at the time) I don't have space for the details but I had a case for negligence and still think they are slack, nearly got into a fight with the island guy who works there and is about a head taller than me, the police can deal with that seperatly. I complained to BP and the owner finally got an email from the owner. I had to hassle the owner twice a day for about ten days to get some action but he finally got me to take the bike to Red Baron for a quote. They sent that to the owner and he forwarded it to their insurance co. They contacted me and said it's all ok to take the bike in for repairs and whats my insurance company? I was at work and got suss, told her I am fully insured (true) but don't want to involve the company as I'm not claiming from them and the damage was not my fault, why should there be a chance it is on my insurance record when I have done nothing wrong? I also said I wanted bike rental for the period of the repair. She was fine with that and the bike is getting fixed at present. If someone hits you and damages parts of your bike, I would expect the part to be repaired to the same as they were, if the repairs are less, lucky them, if they're heaps, unlucky them (or stupid for doing something where they were at fault in a crash). I don't think Klingon wanted more than anyone else would, someone wrecked his stuff and he wants what he had before they did that, not for their liability to be capped because he has agreed a lower figure with a company that is not involved in covering the cost of repairs. I'm sure if he claimed with his company he would only expect the $2000 he has listed to be paid. He's not trying to rip anyone off, just had a bike and wants the bike back, no cash or rubbish.


"OR THE LESSER OF THE TWO AMOUNTS", NEVER THE GREATER, HEH HEH HEH, THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR GIVING THE COMPANIES THE INFO WITHOUT QUESTIONING THINGS, A WAY OUT.

[jetboy]

...why should there be a chance it is on my insurance record when I have done nothing wrong?

If the claim is deemed to be "not at fault" on your part, you would not be penalised.

[90s]

The point of this thread was to draw people's attention to the fact that in a situation like this you're better off to be uninsured than to be under-insured. I had no idea that this was the case beforehand, and I hope others can learn from my unhappy experience.

Like everyone here I feel for the loss of your Volty. As someone rear-ended at a junction recently (although luckily in our car) it feels bad to be completely in the right and suffer financial loss and the loss of wheels for a time.

BUT I cannot follow you down the road you are leading above. What is your message to learn? To be uninsured? Or that in this particular circumstance you were worse of to be insured?

1) Insurance is not on a particular incident basis - but covers a large range of events. If you bike had been hit by an uninsured car, stolen, caught fire, you hit a pedestrian or a range of other things you would be far better off insured, even third-party fire and theft. OVER ALL you were still better off off insured because you were protected against a range of risks.
2) In any event it seems to turn out that using your insurance co they would recover the amount you told them the bike was worth (which was your decision to underinsure) AND then attempt to recover the difference to replacement market value.
3) Going directly to the other parties insurer would IN NO WAY mean that you would not be wrangling over the value of your bike, only this time you vs. their insurer is a lot more hassle and LESS likely to prevail than your insurer vs. their insurer.

Although this looks as though I am v. pro insurance, I have had good and bad experiences with insurance cos. over the years but generally to be insured is far safer overall. Particularly should I accidently cause and accident.

Hope the repairs go well and the volty is back on the road again.
If repairing have you thought about the tan seat? Who thinks they look pretty cool?

[Oscar]

Hi, I am a broker at John Baker Insurance.

1) You need to insure the bike for it's replacement value. If you insure a vehicle worth $10,000 for $5,000 - then in the event of a claim you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay $10,000 for the vehicle.

2) If you make a claim with an insurer and then decide to withdraw half way through, you must still tell any other insurer you contact for a quote/insurance that you have lodged(and then withdrawn) a claim, and that you have been involved in an accident. Most insurers have this question on their proposal form.

3) If you decide to contact the third party's insurance whether or not this third party is at fault, their insurer will ask if you have insurance, and why you are not claiming on your policy. They will then, most likely, tell you to claim on your policy.

1) Actually I think you mean market value. I don't imagine anyone is offering replacement cover.

2) One out of three, not bad.

3) They can TELL you anything they like, but you don't have to do it. You are quite at liberty to hold the other party liable and not claim on your own insurance. This happens frequently for claims under excess.

[Oscar]

As your bike was insured for $2,000 we will base our claim on this value, however we will definitely attempt to recover for the extra $1,000 from the other insurance company on your behalf, as we would to any "un-insured" loss any of our clients suffer.

That's very big of you.
Legally, if you accept the claim on that basis, one third of every dollar you recover goes back to the insured. Even better, as the excess is the "first loss", you should be paying that back in full, first.

I'm surprised you didn't apply average.

[Pancakes]

1) Actually I think you mean market value. I don't imagine anyone is offering replacement cover.

I get brand new replacement for the first 12 months. :yes:

That clicked over 8 days ago. No claims, thats nice.

[Grumpy Gnomb]

also spoke to jetboy and got confirmation that if I buy a brand new bike and I total it in the first 12 months I get a brand new one. Sound sweets to me

[Oscar]

I get brand new replacement for the first 12 months. :yes:

That clicked over 8 days ago. No claims, thats nice.

That's common to all Motor Vehicle policies.
Now yer insured for market value.

[N4CR]

slightly overinsure it.. helps. also good for getting damaged gear back if need be.

[jetboy]

1) Actually I think you mean market value. I don't imagine anyone is offering replacement cover.

2) One out of three, not bad.

3) They can TELL you anything they like, but you don't have to do it. You are quite at liberty to hold the other party liable and not claim on your own insurance. This happens frequently for claims under excess.

Hi again Oscar. Still handing out bad reputation I see?


In response:

1) Read that sentence in context please. I was simply pointing out that you should insure the bike for what it's worth and not to under/over insure. As a matter of fact if you buy a brand new bike and fully insure it through me, if the bike is written off within the first 12 months we will get you a brand new bike.

3) :rofl: Nice one man! It happens frequently for claims under excess because, wait for it.......the claim is under excess! If your excess is $750 and the repair costs $450, why would you involve your insurer?

:baby: Shhhh its ok Oscar, daddy's here now.

[jetboy]

That's very big of you.
Legally, if you accept the claim on that basis, one third of every dollar you recover goes back to the insured. Even better, as the excess is the "first loss", you should be paying that back in full, first.

I'm surprised you didn't apply average.
Ask Klingon what we/Star Insurance settled the claim for.

[jetboy]

That's common to all Motor Vehicle policies.
Now yer insured for market value.

Is it really? :blink: Every motor vehicle policy aye?

[Oscar]

Hi again Oscar. Its been a long time!
In response:

1) Read that sentence in context please. I was simply pointing out that you should insure the bike for what it's worth and not to under/over insure. As a matter of fact if you buy a brand new bike and fully insure it through me, if the bike is written off within the first 12 months we will get you a brand new bike.

3) :rofl: Nice one man! It happens frequently for claims under excess because, wait for it.......the claim is under excess! If your excess is $750 and the repair costs $450, why would you involve your insurer?

:baby: Shhhh its ok Oscar, daddy's here now.


I see your comprehension skills are unchanged.
Insurers (obviously not the ones you use) quite frequently act for clients where the claim is under the excess. Does your cover not include third party indemnity?
What a maroon.

[Oscar]

Ask Klingon what we/Star Insurance settled the claim for.

So have you got a bike yet?
Or are you just here on orders from Mr. B to flog his product?
Spamming prick.

[zooter]

Another 50c and another question for Jetboy

what Jetboy was alluding to in his "I won't go into the behind the scenes workings of insurance" sort of statements is the insurers' "knock for knock" arrangement. I don't want to run it down because at the end of the day it keeps evryones insurance cheaper.

Instead of insurance companies chasing each other for payments and having to deal with the other company's insured party and loss assessor they just cover their own insured's claim and it all averages out at the end of the year. "knock for knock" it doesn't matter who is the guilty party

Now in this case it's a bit different because of the excess over the sum insured. I believe Jetboy is representing the client as his broker (which is a completely different animal to the insurer) and going after the other insurer for the excess.

Somebody made a post about the insurer getting dibs on a chunk of the excess clawed back from the guilty party's insurance. I'd like to see a response to that and a clarification of the boundaries, obligations and niceties of broker acting for the insured "against" the company he's trying to buy cheap insurance off on behalf of the client.

[zooter]

I had to hassle the owner twice a day for about ten days to get some action but he finally got me to take the bike to Red Baron for a quote. They sent that to the owner and he forwarded it to their insurance co. They contacted me and said it's all ok to take the bike in for repairs and whats my insurance company? I was at work and got suss, told her I am fully insured (true) but don't want to involve the company as I'm not claiming from them and the damage was not my fault, why should there be a chance it is on my insurance record when I have done nothing wrong? I also said I wanted bike rental for the period of the repair. She was fine with that and the bike is getting fixed at present.

She was fine with that? You might want to take some more advice on just accepting her assurance over the phone.

[Pancakes]

Zooter, what more advice do I need?

She asked me if their companies assessor has seen the bike, I said no, she had a look at the quote and told me "it's all fine". She had got the quote from the bike shop via the service station owner. I talked to the shop an hour after that and they confirmed it's all signed off on by the insurer and to drop the bike off and get a rental from them. They are the insurer for BP's public liability and so I'd assume for all of BP (NZ at least) so I'd bet they're bigger (and more professional, heheheh) than yo' mommas ass!

I also have the confirmation from her in writing (email), never hurts to have a hard copy in your back pocket eh?

[zooter]

never mind my mother's arse but I see you have stuff in writing these days.

[Pancakes]

You don't see nutin'. I was never here. Sorry for not disclosing every detail of what happened. Still don't really know what you were trying to say but thats ok, if aliens come and kill us all in alphabetical order of our KB names you'll still be smiling smugly while I'll be gassy vapour.

[Oscar]

Another 50c and another question for Jetboy

what Jetboy was alluding to in his "I won't go into the behind the scenes workings of insurance" sort of statements is the insurers' "knock for knock" arrangement. I don't want to run it down because at the end of the day it keeps evryones insurance cheaper.

Instead of insurance companies chasing each other for payments and having to deal with the other company's insured party and loss assessor they just cover their own insured's claim and it all averages out at the end of the year. "knock for knock" it doesn't matter who is the guilty party

Now in this case it's a bit different because of the excess over the sum insured. I believe Jetboy is representing the client as his broker (which is a completely different animal to the insurer) and going after the other insurer for the excess.

Somebody made a post about the insurer getting dibs on a chunk of the excess clawed back from the guilty party's insurance. I'd like to see a response to that and a clarification of the boundaries, obligations and niceties of broker acting for the insured "against" the company he's trying to buy cheap insurance off on behalf of the client.

Firstly, the excess is the first part of the loss - therefore it's the first part of the recovery. In other words, the first money that your insurer recovers from the other guy is YOURS.

Secondly, it is my contention that where there is an uninsured loss (aside from an excess), any recovery should be paid based on that ratio.

In respect of "brokers" in this market - be careful. There are very few brokers who can truly claim to have access to the entire market of bike insurers.

[stevensaaron]

If the claim is deemed to be "not at fault" on your part, you would not be penalised.

in the beginning of Nov I was riding along the road on my 'Suzuki GSX 250 Across' when a guy was driving erratically behind me e.g swaying behind me, accelerating behind me. then he passed me on the left hand side of me and got really close to me forcing me to go into the centre road Island that has plants and trees. I was travelling 50 Km in A 50 Km zone. I hit a couple of trees (I was not hurt, thankfully). and he drove off. there was a man walking along the footpath who saw the whole thing happen and ran over to help me pick up the bike. Neither of us were able to get the Registration of the Vehicle. while we were exchanging names and numbers the guy who ran me off the rode had come back. the witness had to go so he left us talking. I asked the driver of the vehicle who forced me off the rode if he had a pen and paper, he went and got one but then asked me what for and I told him it was so I could get his/and vehicle details to claim on Insurance. (no police were involved). The next day I went to make a police report but it was filed and nothing was done about it (something about they don't investiagte insurance accidents). He was and still is claiming it was not his fault. any way I took it to a client from work who does insurance work for a quote assessment. and after a lengthy process of waiting for the Insurance company, They are writting it off they first gave me an offer of $2,500 minus an excess of $500, and me and my dad had a real go at them beacuse it was too low they then offered me $3,500. minus an excess of $500. (I bought it for 4,600 at christmas 2006, 11 months before the accident, I had insured my bike for $4,600 The bike is a '1993 Suzuki GSX 250 Across' when i bought it, it had about 12,000 Kms on the clock and pretty much perfect condition & well serviced, it had about 20,000Km when I had the accident and still in the same condition, how can the 'pre-crash assesors tell what it was like before the crash when all they see is the crashed result?) it's rare bike in New Zealand and I am still not happy with 3,500, I would like to get at least what i paid for it, or no less than 4,000, what can i do about that? Also I shouldn't be paying the excess because it wasn't my fault, but because He isn't claiming Liability (he even told the my insurance that i intimidated him, that's like trying to say that an ant intimidated a lion.) even though I have a witness who said it was his fault, I still have to pay the excess. The driver didn't touch me he just got so close to me, so he didn't have any damage to his vehicle(a 4x4 nissan ute) so he hasn't the need to go to his insurance. What do I need to do? If i have to accept the 3,500 minus 500 excess that they have offered is their any way that i can "sue" the other guy for the loss of my bike value and excess.
also what is supposed to happen to the bike after they write it off? They are saying that if i want the bike back It will cost me $200
I am insured through a brokerbut i think that i might speak direct to the insurance company.

cheers
Aaron.

[fredie]

i was taken out by a small truck . i went too hospital . cops left my bike on the footpath. then bike gets stolen . uninsured . but truck driver fully insured. cops gave him a ticket:spanking: bike gone forever never found :oi-grr:trucks insurence would not pay for bike . because they could access it:Oi:that sux

[stevensaaron]

I think the insurance company that the broker goes through is NZI. I think that i might threaten to close my cover with them and go some where else if i don't get the result that i am after. the main thing that i am really angry with is that the driver is saying that he is not at fault and even though i have a witness that says he is I am the one who has to do the running aound. The broker said that if i din't like the result that I need to go to the disputes tribunal, They aren't trying to help me at all, they are just taking my money and then try to screw me with pathetic offers. All while the driver is having nothing done to him. and he still gets to drive his car, while i am waiting to get another bike. I don't mind it being written off, I was going to sell it soon anyway, I am going to get a Hyosung GV250 So i need all the money I can get.

[Edbear]

...State are a bunch of lying cheating cunts who'll try to get away with anything and everything.



Not always, you've made a sweeping defamatory statement here and as many others have pointed out, Klingon made a judgement call that didn't "pay off" at claim time.

We've been with State since Adam was a cowboy and have had nothing but the best treatment from them in circumstances that totally relied on them taking my word without evidence.

The only item not with State is my bike due to them being uncompetitive, and Jetboy giving us a very good deal.

I sympathise with you Klingon, but Insurance, like any contract has fine print and you need to know what you're signing. In my field, I have to advise people of what they actually have, and it is often very different from what they thought they had.

With vehicles, all insurance companies will pay current market value or insured value, whichever is the lesser, unless you have an "agreed value" or "total replacement with new" policy.

[Matt_TG]

I sympathise with you Klingon, but Insurance, like any contract has fine print and you need to know what you're signing. In my field, I have to advise people of what they actually have, and it is often very different from what they thought they had.
.

In today's market most policies are written in quite a user-friendly way. What they will and won't cover is all there in the policy, and the schedule that lists your bike will have the amounts or basis it's insured on.

People seem to forget that when they buy insurance they are entering into a contract with someone, that sets out the terms of what will happen if you make a claim, right at day one. In fact when you sign you declare that you have read and understood the Policy wording. If you haven't, then read before signing!

If you won't read it cause it's all just too hard, then you are your own worst enemy.

Edbear's comments about Market Value vs Agreed Value are spot on, too.

:scooter:

[Oscar]

I think the insurance company that the broker goes through is NZI. I think that i might threaten to close my cover with them and go some where else if i don't get the result that i am after. the main thing that i am really angry with is that the driver is saying that he is not at fault and even though i have a witness that says he is I am the one who has to do the running aound. The broker said that if i din't like the result that I need to go to the disputes tribunal, They aren't trying to help me at all, they are just taking my money and then try to screw me with pathetic offers. All while the driver is having nothing done to him. and he still gets to drive his car, while i am waiting to get another bike. I don't mind it being written off, I was going to sell it soon anyway, I am going to get a Hyosung GV250 So i need all the money I can get.

I copied this from the other thread, in case you missed it.

1. You probably shouldn't have to pay the excess. Most insurers have a rule that if an "at fault" third party is identified, the excess is waived. However bear in mind that the excess is the uninsured portion of this risk that you accepted when signing the proposal, so you can't make them act on this issue. Having said that, whereas you are out of pocket, the insurer has a lot more to loose - why aren't they going after the third party?

2. Generally, when the settlement amount is in dispute there is a procedure whereby you are able to value the bike by getting your own dealers estimates. Ask the assessor.

3. Apart from the expensive option of a Solicitor, you might like to try other cheaper options first - the Insurance Ombudsman and the Small Claims Tribunal.

4. There are Brokers and Brokers. Some are just Life Insurance guys trying to upspec their image, and some are flogging a particular policy in an effort to maximise their business (and consequently their brokerage) with that particular insurer. Go direct to the insurer, as that is guaranteed to piss off the claims department.