insurance without cosmetics worth it?

[cowboyz]

with insurance costs being as expensive as they are and all too often seeing bikes appearing on trademe from star insurance that really have very little damage but are uneconomical to repair because of the replacing scratched parts policy I was wondering if there was a market for insurance cover that only fixes your bike back to WOF conditions and get the bike running.

for instance, if I took my bike for a slide down the road and take out the right hand side they would fix the stuff that actually broke. Fairings would not be covered. If the muffler was dented or scratched up but still connected and worked it would not be repaired. Bike checked over to being striaght and WOF and handed back. It would be acceptable for the insurance company to source 2nd hand parts to repair any parts that are required to get bike running. No paintwork. Maybe if fairings are smashed up they could plastic weld them but no painting?

Is this viable for reduced premiums and excess?

Would people jump on board or just prefer to pay the current rates to get their bike back to mint if they do fuck up?

Might start a poll, and split it to bike being younger than 5 years and older than 5 years....

[Mikkel]

I think you'll find that those of us who bother getting insurance actually care about our bikes - and as such would prefer proper coverage for crash and spill damages. :yes:

Maybe if this was in a side clause covering track use and/or racing events.

[Coyote]

Yes

10 characters

[cowboyz]

I think you'll find that those of us who bother getting insurance actually care about our bikes - and as such would prefer proper coverage for crash and spill damages. :yes:

Maybe if this was in a side clause covering track use and/or racing events.
taking out insurance is about managing risk. If your bike is worth $1000 and you are paying $250 per year then that means you think that there is reasonable cause that in the next 3 years you bike will be damaged or stolen to the value of the $1000. Otherwise, it is uneconomic to insure, you may as well have put the $250 in your pocket for 4 years and you have paid yourself back.
But if you assess the risk and decide it is unforseeable that you will have total loss of your bike and dont mind it looking a little rough if you do spill then having insurance for $100 per year gives you 10 years insurance before it becomes uneconomic.
(before it all gets out of control I am looking for intellegent debate on this and when I refer to "you"and "your" bike I am just making examples, not saying your bike is actually worth $1000 or you are paying $250 per year for insurance.


Yes

10 characters

care to elaborate?

[JimO]

so you tbone a brand new merc causing 28k damage that $250 looks cheap now eh!!

[Mikkel]

taking out insurance is about managing risk. If your bike is worth $1000 and you are paying $250 per year then that means you think that there is reasonable cause that in the next 3 years you bike will be damaged or stolen to the value of the $1000. Otherwise, it is uneconomic to insure, you may as well have put the $250 in your pocket for 4 years and you have paid yourself back.
But if you assess the risk and decide it is unforseeable that you will have total loss of your bike and dont mind it looking a little rough if you do spill then having insurance for $100 per year gives you 10 years insurance before it becomes uneconomic.
(before it all gets out of control I am looking for intellegent debate on this and when I refer to "you"and "your" bike I am just making examples, not saying your bike is actually worth $1000 or you are paying $250 per year for insurance.

So you are saying my bike is only worth $1000? Get real... p/t

:lol: - I'm with you... ;)

Jokes aside...

So how about theft? How about fire? How about your insurance company having to pay out initially because someone else causes an accident - only cosmetics?

However, while the example you make is pretty good the figures are a bit off. I've been quoted $240 a year by State to provide comprehensive cover for a bike of the value $6000.

[HornetBoy]

My Bikes less than 5 yrs old -i said NO in my case,A-because it is worth a lil bit ,B-because if i am in an accident involving others id like cover for the other vehicle involved and also my gear,C- well if im getting insurance it may as well cover the bike fully be it a new one or a full repair ,not to worried about what i pay as it is not too bad of a rate and i know i may well replace the bikes on a yearly basis and it makes me feel confident that if something does happen im not ending up with a bike i cant really sell onward because i only had cosmetic repairs not a full replacement.

Tis a good idea tho

[Mike748]

If I was riding a naked bike or something with very limited plastic then I'd be keen. I'd also fit some crash bungs and hopefully wouldn't have to claim unless it was a nasty off.

At present though Ive got the Duc and as it is currently geting repaired I can confirm that the cosmetics cost! :blink:

So for now it'll be full cover (with revised premiums):doh:

[cowboyz]

So you are saying my bike is only worth $1000? Get real... p/t
spidey-pig spidey-pig does what spidey-pig does..........
:lol: - I'm with you... ;)

Jokes aside...

So how about theft? How about fire? How about your insurance company having to pay out initially because someone else causes an accident - only cosmetics?
err. You would still be insured! theft would be total loss. But if they recovered the bike you would get it back. If the fairings were all scratched up the insurance would not pay to repair. That is the risk for taking out the cheaper insurance. But you are still insured. If your bike is not recovered or written off then market value would apply.
Fire - well that would probably be a total loss scenario. Insurance pays out market value.
Not sure what you mean by ins co paying out for someone else causing an accident. Their insurance should cover that but as per standard, if they are not insured and you cant get them to pay for it then your insurance will only cover that which is required to get your bike back to WOF standard.

However, while the example you make is pretty good the figures are a bit off. I've been quoted $240 a year by State to provide comprehensive cover for a bike of the value $6000.
yeah yeah, I am trying to watch house, couldnt be bothered using real figures. it was an example, the figures are not important, it is the theory I am interested in.

[cowboyz]

My Bikes less than 5 yrs old -i said NO in my case,A-because it is worth a lil bit ,B-because if i am in an accident involving others id like cover for the other vehicle involved and also my gear,C- well if im getting insurance it may as well cover the bike fully be it a new one or a full repair ,not to worried about what i pay as it is not too bad of a rate and i know i may well replace the bikes on a yearly basis and it makes me feel confident that if something does happen im not ending up with a bike i cant really sell onward because i only had cosmetic repairs not a full replacement.
this is not a no insurance thread, you would still be insured and they would still pay to fully repair any vehicle you hit (3rd parties) it is just your bike that will not have the cosmentics fixed. You should have a fair bit of understanding how much cheaper you can get a bike back on the road using second hand parts and a few here and there bits rather than replacing everything brand new (which is what insurance companies do which is why bikes get written off with very little real damage) with your recent fix it upper.


If I was riding a naked bike or something with very limited plastic then I'd be keen. I'd also fit some crash bungs and hopefully wouldn't have to claim unless it was a nasty off.

At present though Ive got the Duc and as it is currently geting repaired I can confirm that the cosmetics cost! :blink:

So for now it'll be full cover (with revised premiums):doh:

fair call. The 748 is a weapon. That would certainly be an example of a bike you want fully covered.

[yod]

spidey-pig spidey-pig does what spidey-pig does..


:shit:

you stole my line:girlfight:

[cowboyz]

you going to get involved in the discussion or sit round eating popcorn slapping people?

[HornetBoy]

this is not a no insurance thread,
didnt mean to say it was

you would still be insured and they would still pay to fully repair any vehicle you hit (3rd parties) it is just your bike that will not have the cosmentics fixed.
You should have a fair bit of understanding how much cheaper you can get a bike back on the road using second hand parts and a few here and there bits rather than replacing everything brand new (which is what insurance companies do which is why bikes get written off with very little real damage) with your recent fix it upper.

yup certainly do,but if id have had insurance then i personally would rather them replace brandew (becuase its just easier to trade or sell later on) then myself having to find 2nd hand parts that may or maynot match the current parts and would leave me with a potentially worthless bike in terms of tradin value etc
also the fact that i would have to,on top of paying the weekly rate for the non cosmetic fixup,pay for my cosmetics out of pocket would leave me without my main source of transport for weeks or months (in my case a naked katana is just not an option as the indicators are wired into the fairing and so is the speedometer etc),so i couldnt even ride it naked whillst fixing it

[Coyote]

care to elaborate?
I want a litre bike but can't pay for insurance. A cheaper premium just to get it back mobile if I do wreck it would be good. Though I suppose it won't count for a total write off.

I'm biased as I'm at tech learning Auto Refinishing so scratched paint = blank canvas :p

[cowboyz]

fair enough.

I really like my bike but have a fair ammount of contacts that I could replace/repaint the fairings alot cheaper than the insurance company could. If I did bin it it would be almost a guarentee the bike would be written off, simply because it would be too hard to fix. It is too old and too much plastic on it. Would be nicer if they would just fix up the broken bits and leave me to fix the plastics. And nicer to have reduced premiums / excess for it.

[RantyDave]

with insurance costs being as expensive as they are and all too often seeing bikes appearing on trademe from star insurance that really have very little damage but are uneconomical to repair because of the replacing scratched parts policy I was wondering if there was a market for insurance cover that only fixes your bike back to WOF conditions and get the bike running.
I would certainly be keen. I've always thought it unfair that bike manufacturers get away with charging thousands of dollars for lumps of plastic purely because the insurance companies are going to foot the bill. I also know that if it were my money fixing up my now busted bike I'd be significantly less picky than the 'back to mint' level that the insurance company is contractually obliged to provide.

I'd want to see "no cosmetics" insurance being significantly cheaper though - like at least half price.

Dave

[ynot slow]

Sounds like a good idea.
Wonder if it is feaseable for an insurance company to do it,maybe say Swann or specialist bike company.Ask the company if you take an option of repair to wof quality and plastic welded as you say,then handed back to customer.Might get put in the too hard basket.

[YellowDog]

I think the riders on KB are split between owners with 'old functional bikes' and owners who see their bikes as an item and 'statement of beauty and perfection'.

If you have a bike you are proud to own, clean it regularly, and also ensure that everything is 'just right' then it will always have to be perfect. No scratches, no dents, nothing but perfection will do.

The 'We'll just makes sure the wheels turn' policy option is a pointless non-starter for this group.

[James Deuce]

The insurance companies won't offer it because there is a significant amount of work involved in sourcing non-OEM parts. Especially as NZ businesses in the motorcycle arena have either been around for decades (established shops with a vested interest in selling OEM parts) or last 3-5 years before the bank stops lending the business money.

The only way an insurance company would offer a service like that at a reduced cost would be if it required less work from them. In other words, "Here's your half price insurance premium excluding cosmetics and we will discuss how much it will cost to repair in the event of an accident and you will be sourcing repair quotes, organising repairs or performing them yourself, and performing any WoF checks, all at your cost and we will reimburse you IF the bike is roadworthy."

I understand why the Insurance companies go for OEM over repair, given some of the dodgy #8 fencing wire repairs that still go on in the car industry. With a bike, things HAVE to be right, because the repercussions of things being wrong are much more likely to result in injury or death.

You'd need to set up your own insurance company that specialised in that type of repair, and carry significant indemnity insurance yourself.

[avgas]

I can do cosmetics for 1/10 of what the insurance crowd can do it for. So yes i would get full blown cover if cosmetics were not covered and the policy (and excess) were alot less.
I wrote off and RG150 once as i broke 2 indicators, 1 mirror and scratched (not break) 1 side fairings.
$2500 worth of damage in their eyes, i had it fixed and normal looking for 10 hours hard work and $300.
Plus policy's would get cheaper if you didn't have to pay so much for squids.
So YES, and my current bike is 01. But also YES if my bike was less than 5

[Oscar]

Why don't just get insurance with a voluntary excess?

[cowboyz]

care to elaborate?

[cowboyz]

The insurance companies won't offer it because there is a significant amount of work involved in sourcing non-OEM parts. Especially as NZ businesses in the motorcycle arena have either been around for decades (established shops with a vested interest in selling OEM parts) or last 3-5 years before the bank stops lending the business money.

The only way an insurance company would offer a service like that at a reduced cost would be if it required less work from them. In other words, "Here's your half price insurance premium excluding cosmetics and we will discuss how much it will cost to repair in the event of an accident and you will be sourcing repair quotes, organising repairs or performing them yourself, and performing any WoF checks, all at your cost and we will reimburse you IF the bike is roadworthy."

I understand why the Insurance companies go for OEM over repair, given some of the dodgy #8 fencing wire repairs that still go on in the car industry. With a bike, things HAVE to be right, because the repercussions of things being wrong are much more likely to result in injury or death.

You'd need to set up your own insurance company that specialised in that type of repair, and carry significant indemnity insurance yourself.

the repairer may opt to quote using some OEM parts. Nothing stopping them using quality OEM parts, the idea is simply to take out the expensive bits that dont mean anything to the way the bike performs or handles. Under current policies if you scratch your muffler (let alone dent it) it will be replaced with a brand new one. Theres about a $12-2000 savings for the insurance company right there.
Of course, I never proposed that the insurance policies as we know them now be abolished either. Just more choice.
There are some who value the look of their bike and are quite happy to pay full insurance to ensure that if something does go wrong the bike will be back in perfect condition. Thats fine.

[Oscar]

care to elaborate?

Certainly.
Most retail insurers have a set of standard rates, which are based on their standard excess. However they will almost certainly discount the rate for a higher excess. Insurers don't generally offer this unless you ask.

I'll do some research tomorrow and come back to you (I am an Insurance Broker, but I normally do Business/Corporate stuff so I'm gonna have to ask one of the motor insurers).

[cowboyz]

but if you altering your excess while may save you a few dollars a month (not a whole lot) in premiums you will get hit hard if you need to repair your bike.

the whole cheaper excess/cheaper premiums at a cost of not having your bike repaired cosmetically is attractive to me.

[cowboyz]

might just add. After 40 votes 9% of people who have bikes less than 5 years old think it is an idea and 38% of people with bikes older than 5 years think it is an idea.

[mark247]

I voted no. Firstly if i was to get stuff fixed on my bike i wouldnt want second hand parts used by the insurance company. I dont mind using second hand parts myself but i want to know what is and what isnt new. Also, my bike is a 93 and fibre glass replacement fairings are readly available ( im not sure if the insurance company would use them tho, im guessing no. ) but if they did use them, im sure the cosmetic side of things would cost tooooo much.

For me having full insurance is for the piece of mind that if i do bin it, i will have my bike back how it was with no work done on my behalf ( or cash equivelent to get another simular bike ). If i was expecting to be doing work to fix up the fairings, in my opinion i may as well ( if the frame is still straight ) fix the rest of it as well.

[discotex]

Given how much image is a part of riding I can't really see the point.

If I trash the fairings I want new ones. Period. All that technological wizardry is meaningless if the bike doesn't look cool :devil2:

A more suitable option would be a "Streetfighter/Stunter Policy". Bike returned to WOF standards and made cool without the fairings.

[Squiggles]

Interesting, it would be good as an option, but fairings make some bikes why you brought em. I know tl fairings can be gotten for f'all offshore, and same for some other bikes, depends on how much insurance is going to cost still

Like, if im going to pay $1000 a year with a $1000 excess for full cover, or $500 per year with a $1000 excess, then i'd say its worth it if nothing happens in two + years, but thats all about evaluating the risk

Where it really comes down to it would be the excesses, if i had a much lower excess then yeah, i'd do it. As i see the yearly cost as like paying for the risk (less that you get boned, more that you hit someone else or bike gets stolen), and the excess as what happens when things dont go your way and you get boned. So a lower excess, like $500 instead of $1500, and perhaps slightly less cost per year, fuck yeah.

But it'd have to beat the $300 excess the tl has for full cover (and im only 19) :D :D :D

[cowboyz]

who is that through? and how much you paying to get it?

[Oscar]

but if you altering your excess while may save you a few dollars a month (not a whole lot) in premiums you will get hit hard if you need to repair your bike.

the whole cheaper excess/cheaper premiums at a cost of not having your bike repaired cosmetically is attractive to me.

Surely it's the cosmetic bits that get busted first?
So if you save (say) 20% for a $2,000 excess, why would you expect to do better with your non-cosmetic cover idea.


Actually the major problem with your idea is that there is no advantage for the insurer in the event of write off. How would determine the bikes value for a total loss?

[Grumpy Gnomb]

Are the insurance companies writing off all these bikes because the repairers dont want to do the work or are they charging to much for the parts that need to be replaced?

[HornetBoy]

who is that through? and how much you paying to get it?

probably Through state ,as im on a $250 excess at the moment with them for the katana :2thumbsup

they seem to have the most competitive prices

[HornetBoy]

Are the insurance companies writing off all these bikes because the repairers dont want to do the work or are they charging to much for the parts that need to be replaced?

OEM parts being to dare id say ,Like The $150 for a brake pedal i was quoted :lol: shocking

Have a look at some of the parts quotes on the star insurance auctions (on their homepage) ,Certainly explains why they write the bikes off for litttle scratches or low sides

[cowboyz]

Surely it's the cosmetic bits that get busted first?
So if you save (say) 20% for a $2,000 excess, why would you expect to do better with your non-cosmetic cover idea.
Interesting point. I wasnt thinking along those lines. problem with a $2000k excess is that you could screw your bike up and have $1500 worth of damage to get the bike roadworthy again but $14000 worth of damage to get the bike "as it was before replacing all the scratched parts" With my proposal say a $300 excess and the insurance pays out $1200. Under the other the bike may be worth $10000, deemed uneconomical to repair so insurance co pays out $8000 ($2k excess)


Actually the major problem with your idea is that there is no advantage for the insurer in the event of write off. How would determine the bikes value for a total loss?

The same way the do it now. Just dont count up all the cosmetics. It well may mean that a bike that has gone for a fairly decent slide down the road may cost $1500 to repair instead of $6000 therefore making it so they dont have to write the bike off. Less write offs = better for insurance companies so there is a win for them there.