Important!!! Anyone got pics of swanny's R1?

**bugjuice** · 21st May 2005, 15:20

is there anything we can do to help out? Previous (uncrashed pics)..
Also, the insurance can sift thru the trackday forms and see that Frasers wasn't submitted, cos he wasn't f'in there!! There's plenty of proof to say that he wasn't there. They're just trying it on..

**sAsLEX** · 21st May 2005, 15:37

Originally Posted by bugjuice

is there anything we can do to help out? Previous (uncrashed pics)..
Also, the insurance can sift thru the trackday forms and see that Frasers wasn't submitted, cos he wasn't f'in there!! There's plenty of proof to say that he wasn't there. They're just trying it on..

They could even ask us for interviews, I nearly saw it happen, well came round the corner soon after so dont mind making a statement to that effect

**750Y** · 21st May 2005, 16:52

Originally Posted by bugjuice

is there anything we can do to help out? Previous (uncrashed pics)..
Also, the insurance can sift thru the trackday forms and see that Frasers wasn't submitted, cos he wasn't f'in there!! There's plenty of proof to say that he wasn't there. They're just trying it on..

I was there & he definitely was not there, in fact no R1's were there & no-one crashed.
the investigation will go something like this...
The investigator(probably an ex-cop) will interview him & take notes whilst assuring him that it is just standard procedure(a mere formality if You will..) 'insert Tui label here'.
What he won't say is that it is a formal interview. What they won't be saying is that their standard procedure includes hunting for the smallest technicality either in the established facts surrounding the incident or anything which may transpire throughout the course of the 'conversation', which they can use as a basis to effectively dishonour the claim.
Then they will, report on this interview and claim that their version of accounts is his statement & try to hang him on that.
If that fails they will then hand the case onto a 'claims negotiator'(has a ring about it eh?) to try to minimise the payout.
If i were him I would shut my mouth completely, not sign their bs account of the 'interview' statement without a lawyer present.
they will by now have run a report through an outfit in albany run by ex-cops who buys the majority of classified listings in the media, to search for any evidence that he may be selling the bike or selling parts or buying parts(to presumably fix the bike he secretly crashed at the track 3 weeks ago).
Then they will ask him questions like "äre You trying to sell the bike?"(knowing that they have the info in their manila folder already) if he answers no (because maybe he changed his mind that morning) they will produce this as evidence to support their theory that he crashed it on purpose) and then say he's lied about it because they have evidence of the intention to sell. but if he answers yes it may support the same theory.
by now they will have printed off a complete listing of his entire traffic history and with this sitting in the manila folder will casually ask questions like "have you ever had a speeding ticket?" then if he says yeah i had 2 last year, they will find the one he got back in 1986(truly) and present this as evidence that he intentionally misrepresented himself & "HAD THEY KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE INSURED HIM"(and this is the cruncher that if You see it on Paper You are fucked)
basically if an investigator is involved they are trying to screw him out of his money PERIOD.
better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one! & if it's state get 2.

**SPman** · 21st May 2005, 17:47

Spoken with the bitter experience from one who has been there!
Cunts!

**k14** · 21st May 2005, 18:21

Yeah, sounds like you've been on the wrong end of the stick, its true the insurance companies are a necessary evil, can't live with them, can't live without them.

But as long as swanman has been up front about everything and hasn't lied about anything then he will be sweet as.

**Ghost Lemur** · 21st May 2005, 18:40

Originally Posted by 750Y

I was there & he definitely was not there, in fact no R1's were there & no-one crashed.
the investigation will go something like this...
The investigator(probably an ex-cop) will interview him & take notes whilst assuring him that it is just standard procedure(a mere formality if You will..) 'insert Tui label here'.
What he won't say is that it is a formal interview. What they won't be saying is that their standard procedure includes hunting for the smallest technicality either in the established facts surrounding the incident or anything which may transpire throughout the course of the 'conversation', which they can use as a basis to effectively dishonour the claim.
Then they will, report on this interview and claim that their version of accounts is his statement & try to hang him on that.
If that fails they will then hand the case onto a 'claims negotiator'(has a ring about it eh?) to try to minimise the payout.
If i were him I would shut my mouth completely, not sign their bs account of the 'interview' statement without a lawyer present.
they will by now have run a report through an outfit in albany run by ex-cops who buys the majority of classified listings in the media, to search for any evidence that he may be selling the bike or selling parts or buying parts(to presumably fix the bike he secretly crashed at the track 3 weeks ago).
Then they will ask him questions like "äre You trying to sell the bike?"(knowing that they have the info in their manila folder already) if he answers no (because maybe he changed his mind that morning) they will produce this as evidence to support their theory that he crashed it on purpose) and then say he's lied about it because they have evidence of the intention to sell. but if he answers yes it may support the same theory.
by now they will have printed off a complete listing of his entire traffic history and with this sitting in the manila folder will casually ask questions like "have you ever had a speeding ticket?" then if he says yeah i had 2 last year, they will find the one he got back in 1986(truly) and present this as evidence that he intentionally misrepresented himself & "HAD THEY KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE INSURED HIM"(and this is the cruncher that if You see it on Paper You are fucked)
basically if an investigator is involved they are trying to screw him out of his money PERIOD.
better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one! & if it's state get 2.

I wonder how they're using the fact he's currently overseas against him. Sure they're trying to tie it in in a way that means no payout.

**750Y** · 21st May 2005, 19:17

Originally Posted by k14

...But as long as swanman has been up front about everything and hasn't lied about anything then he will be sweet as.

You would think so, but they have a whole bag of nasty tricks. they know the game so well & they are very good at it. My point really is just watch that interview process it is full of traps for the unwary claimant.

**DEATH_INC.** · 21st May 2005, 19:27

Ex cop eh?You've been there before......He certainly is.....
Anyone wants to say their piece e-mail him at douglasg@xtra.co.nz
ZED I'm sure he'd like one from you as you were right there....
BTW he's a keen bike man and has signed up here now...not sure of the name but I'm sure he'll make himself known eventually....
I gave him a statement about where and when I picked the R1 up from the other day,and I'm sure Swanman will appreciate anyone who can verify what happened.

**2_SL0** · 21st May 2005, 20:09

This looks to be on a slippery slope I would be very cautious if I was Swanman.
Possibly make no statement to anyone until you have spoken to a lawyer.
Its not good when insurance companies start fishing, it means they are suspect and may well opt out.

**Tomcat** · 21st May 2005, 21:16

Well just remember most people are honest and thats what insurance is for. There are some people who ruin for everyone else. I am not saying this is one of those cases. No one is trying to wiggle out of anything but when you are talking about a written off R1 ( work out the dollar figure) then the insurance company has a right to look into it. As a PI I do hundreds of these to gather info to assist the insurance company to make the decision. In this case the best thing that has happened is witnesses, witnesses and more witnesses, and of course photos. You need to remember that there have been people who have crashed a bike at the Pukekohe track and then attempted to make claims. Ask yourself this question before you condemn the insurance companies. "Why do I pay so much gold to insure my bike?" The reason is that there are $150 million estimated in false claims a year in NZ alone. (Thats all types of insurances)If you ran a business insuring bikes what steps would you take to ensure a claim was legitimate??? Food for thought.

However as a biker myself I understand what everyone says. But common sense rules the day. I would like to say thanks for the help I have received as it has in the main been positive and has made my job easier.

**sAsLEX** · 21st May 2005, 21:21

Originally Posted by Tomcat

As a PI I do hundreds of these to gather info to assist the insurance company to make the decision. In this case the best thing that has happened is witnesses, witnesses and more witnesses, and of course photos.

As mentioned earlier I am happy to make a statement, I was first on the scene.

oh some companys insure bikes for the track if it aint racing, but training or testing.

**Tomcat** · 21st May 2005, 21:23

Sometimes us 'sleazy PIs as you put it can save you all sorts of problems. No one is sneaking around

**Tomcat** · 21st May 2005, 21:25

What a lot of hogwash. That is the biggest load of tripe I have read in a longtime...period.

**dangerous** · 21st May 2005, 21:29

Originally Posted by Tomcat

The reason is that there are $150 million estimated in false claims a year in NZ alone.

Small change to a insurance Co them and banks make a shit load each year, State move into a new building next year in Chch..... its not comming cheap to them but its no hardship either.