Test riding a bike - no insurance cover

[Mikkel]

Maybe if you thought before posting stupid advice, people wouldn't feel obliged to point out what a tool you are.

I believe we are getting towards the core of the issue here...

The excess is the uninsured portion of any claim (i.e. the bit that the dealer must pay). So if you pay it, you are admitting that the accident was your fault. And since you're not a party to the insurance, paying it, in itself, could be construed as an admission of liability, because if you're liable for the dealers bit, you're liable for the rest, too.

Well, if you pay a $1000 excess - that to me indicates that you are under the assumption that you are covered by insurance. I sure as hell wouldn't be paying an excess if there was no insurance cover in the first place, that's just bollocks.

The dealer should say that; before you take a test ride do fully consider that whilst the bike does have insurance cover, you will not be covered in any way shape or form and hence any damage is down to you.

And if they don't clearly inform you of this they are actually themselves partly liable for any and all damages incurred by the testrider.
Unless you, as the owner, clearly and truthfully informs anyone borrowing your vehicle about what liability coverage they are under part of the blame will fall on you.

As such, if the bike shop told the testrider that he was covered beyond the excess - and it turns out he isn't - then the bikeshop would be liable for any and all damages exceeding the $1000 "excess".

All of this does indeed sound a bit dodgy. I guess the lesson to take home from this is to ensure you got your arse covered before heading out on a testride. And neither should you pay any "excess" unless you know that you are covered by the related insurance policy.

[Tank]

This has been covered dozens of times.

It is standard operating procedure for the insurance company to bluff you into paying up. You have no legal obligation to pay them anything.

For myself, I would file the letter away carefully and do nothing. You will likely receive further bluff and bluster letters from them, and I'd just keep them on file as well.

Steve

Firstly - without having all the information and seeing the detail of the policy - you have no fucken idea if he has legal obligation to pay or not. You are like a bush lawyer, but somewhat less educated.

Still its not like you are changing your tune - your usual respose is to run and deny - others may select to work it out properly. Hiding and being gutless might work for the short term, but in the end you end up a loser. You would seem to be proof positive of that.

Ah that sucks bro. Yeah bikes are for goofing off on, and sometimes we screw it up - thems the breaks! This time you got off lightly.

Right, any damage to anyone else ? Any liability ? If so, deny everything and refuse to discuss the accident with anyone. Disappear into the long grass, and say nothing. Fix your own bike with your own money, and let your sore knee mend itself etc. If anyone wants to knock on your door and talk about the incident, tell them they are at the wrong place. If the feds turn up, tell them u dunno jack about that, and shut the door and go back to what you were doing. Letter from some insurance company demanding payment? bew hew hew, chuck it in the bin. Life goes on. Dont FFS admit the whole thing to the feds in the hope things will be better..

DB

The only thing that has been covered here a dozen times is the fact that you are a tool.

a dozen times pffft - 100's of times.

This public name-calling business only makes you look weak and out of control. Keep your dirty mouth in check and focus on the problem at hand, rather than putting people down you disagree with.

Steve

And posting crap advise pretending oyu know something about anything makes you look like - well you. - and thats 'not a good thing' (tm)

Anyway - the first step I would recommend is to ask the bike shop for a copy of the 'loan agreement' where he agreed to any terms, and for a copy of the insurance policy.

Im guessing that the agreement between the bike shop and the insurance company requires for the bike shop to have signed forms for test rides.

Now they have found out that there isnt one - then they are possibly saying 'ohh we should not have paid that' and are chasing you (and probally the bike shop as well).

So - gather all the information you can and try to establish WHY they beleive that you are at fault.

THEN you can argue their position.

OH - and ignore anything DB says - thats only going to make matters worse.

[Oscar]

Well, if you pay a $1000 excess - that to me indicates that you are under the assumption that you are covered by insurance. I sure as hell wouldn't be paying an excess if there was no insurance cover in the first place, that's just bollocks.



.

The point here is that it's not your policy.
If you pay the dealer's excess (i.e. his uninsured loss), you are admitting fault.

[Hiflyer]

I'm test riding bikes tomorrow, I'd better make sure that all I'd have to pay is an excess! Do bike shops usually have a form for you to sign?

[Tank]

I'm test riding bikes tomorrow, I'd better make sure that all I'd have to pay is an excess! Do bike shops usually have a form for you to sign?

not a matter of usually - but some do, others dont.

Id go with ones that do - that clearly identifies your obgliations.

[Hiflyer]

not a matter of usually - but some do, others dont.

Id go with ones that do - that clearly identifies your obgliations.

Yea, Haldanes/holeshots/cyclespot aint exactly small dealers so hopefully they'll have something

[Tank]

Yea, Haldanes/holeshots/cyclespot aint exactly small dealers so hopefully they'll have something

if in doubt - just ask them for one.

[Thani-B]

Yea, Haldanes/holeshots/cyclespot aint exactly small dealers so hopefully they'll have something

Colemans, Mt Eden and Red Baron all have forms to sign. Think they all had $2500 excesses as well.

[Mikkel]

The point here is that it's not your policy.
If you pay the dealer's excess (i.e. his uninsured loss), you are admitting fault.

Still, if you pay an excess (or are being told that you are paying one), that implies that there is insurance cover. Otherwise the $1000 must be considered reparations or compensation - not an excess.

[Oscar]

Still, if you pay an excess (or are being told that you are paying one), that implies that there is insurance cover. Otherwise the $1000 must be considered reparations or compensation - not an excess.

Oh yeah - it implies that there's cover and a claims been made.
But by paying the dealer's uninsured portion, you're allowing the insurer to assume that you admit liability.

The insurer in this case only has obligations toward the insured (i.e. the dealer), and not the rider. Having paid the dealer, and assuming a lack of a contractual agreement between the dealer and the rider, the insurer would be perfectly entitled to treat the rider as an at fault third party.

[Mikkel]

Oh yeah - it implies that there's cover and a claims been made.
But by paying the dealer's uninsured portion, you're allowing the insurer to assume that you admit liability.

The insurer in this case only has obligations toward the insured (i.e. the dealer), and not the rider. Having paid the dealer, and assuming a lack of a contractual agreement between the dealer and the rider, the insurer would be perfectly entitled to treat the rider as an at fault third party.

Be that as it may. I'd say you've been hoodwinked and could drag the bikeshop to small claims, get your money back and have the payment annulled. Whether that got a snowball's chance in hell of holding up, I don't know. But the bikeshop would be guilty of misconduct if they allow the insurance company to pursue this course of action after telling the testrider that he is insured. If they haven't told the testrider he was insured, then why would he pay an excess? If the bikeshop is insured, but that insurance does not cover testriders on their bikes, then they have a legal obligation to clearly inform testriders accodingly. At best it's a misunderstanding, at worst it's deliberate misinformation - the former can be rectified, the latter is bad for business once word gets around.

[Oscar]

Be that as it may. I'd say you've been hoodwinked and could drag the bikeshop to small claims, get your money back and have the payment annulled. Whether that got a snowball's chance in hell of holding up, I don't know. But the bikeshop would be guilty of misconduct if they allow the insurance company to pursue this course of action after telling the testrider that he is insured. If they haven't told the testrider he was insured, then why would he pay an excess? If the bikeshop is insured, but that insurance does not cover testriders on their bikes, then they have a legal obligation to clearly inform testriders accodingly. At best it's a misunderstanding, at worst it's deliberate misinformation - the former can be rectified, the latter is bad for business once word gets around.

The scenario I outlined is an extreme one, and is usually stopped by the dealers documentation, but it has happened.

In a situation where the dealer told the rider he was covered and he wasn't, the insurer could decline the dealers claim.

[Silage]

Bear this in mind ...

The contract of insurance in this case is between the owner of the bike (or who is legally liable for the loss - it could be under a dealer / finance agreement), which is the Bike Shop; and the insurance co.

The excess is the part of the claim that the insured (the Bike Shop) must bear. It's effectively the first part of the loss that is uninsured.

The Bike Shop asked your friend to pay the uninsured part, which they did. This was a private arrangement between the Bike Shop and the Test Rider, nothing more.

The Insurance Co settled the claim, and in doing so, took on all rights that the Bike Shop had as owner (called subrogation), and therefore gained themselves the right to pursue costs from the third party, the Test Rider.

They can do this - the Bike Shop agreed to it when they took out insurance. It's an essential part of Law.

To me the Test Rider's beef is with the Bike Shop.

My suggestion to the Test Rider is to look into what representations were made by the Bike Shop. IF the Bike Shop inferred (by way of a document or verbally - both a 'contract') that any mishap would be limited by the amount of the excess only, the Test Rider could take that further against the Bike Shop at Disputes. That principle is essentially wrong as insurers can pursue, they are not allowing for subrogation to occur.

Another aspect is to look to is whether the Test Rider becomes an "Insured Party" by agreeing to test ride the bike. Perhaps the policy of insurance extends the "Insured" to include test riders (if not it should be looked at), the same as a construction policy can extend to include subcontractors. If this is the case then Insurers cannot recover costs from the Test Rider as he is now an Insured, not a Third Party.

Messy messy messy. Good luck, this can be a minefield.

Whoops haven't checked this thread for a couple of days. Interesting input and thanks esp to Matt_TG.

My main aim of posting this was to suggest that you should be careful to understand the extent of your liabilities when test riding from a shop.

I understand from talking to others about this that this is normal practice for all bike shops, just not many people damage the bikes and so no action is taken. If the shops told you about this openly then few people would test ride (ie bad for business).

Apparently some car shops have the policy of one of the staff accompanying people when test driving so that they are then fully covered under the shop's insurance. Bit more difficult with a bike - and who would want to take balast with them on a test ride.

Be warned!!

[ntst8]

Apparently some car shops have the policy of one of the staff accompanying people when test driving so that they are then fully covered under the shop's insurance. Bit more difficult with a bike - and who would want to take balast with them on a test ride.

I have had a bike shop (a few years ago) do the accompany thing by the sales guy leading the test ride on his bike, i wasn't allowed to overtake him but if i happened to lag behind i was free to catch up again.