Protecta Insurance - Claim problems

[schnupfy]

Hi all,

before I went out on a bike trip with my mate end of February this year, I signed up for a full insurance with Protecta for my BMW R1200C.

Unfortunately after ~2000km riding in a couple of days I hit a tar bump with the back wheel just before a corner and the back wheel broke out to the left and that was it.

Fortunately nothing happened (despite the sore neck) to me.

I filed a claim with Protecta and got it towed to a friends place from where Protecta arranged the bike to be shipped to Experience BMW in AKL.
At BMW they valuated the damage and the worth of the bike with the result that it is a write off

About a week ago I got a letter from Protecta that they have rejected my claim due to the bike not being in a roadworthy state at the time of the accident with the description that the front tire was worn out.
5 weeks before I went on the trip I got the WoF which stated 3 mm thread left at the front tire and between WoF and accident I did ~2100km of riding.
Besides that, a new front tire wouldn't have made a big difference there, as the back wheel broke out I suppose.

I strongly objected right away, but ever since I did that (2 weeks ago) I get excuses that the Claim manager is busy and working on this case but they cannot tell me anything.

Anyone had similar experiences with Protecta?
I am from Germany and in a case like that you'd go to court there. What would be the procedure here if they completely reject the claim?

Thanks in advance,
Marcus

[SVboy]

Hi Marcus, there is an insurance appeal process in nz you can go thru in NZ, or the small claims court. The insurance company should be able to tell you how to appeal.

[Corse1]

Do you have access to the bike to measure actual tyre tread depth? If it is below the standards for a WOF then you may be screwed.

In that situation its you word against there's and very difficult to prove that the front tyre had nothing to do with the accident even though you and me know it did not.

Firstly you need to check the depth. 2000km's with 3mm showing at the start sounds like you might be right. I think its 1.5mm over 3/4 of the tyre for warrant standards,

[schnupfy]

Hey there,

thanks for the ultra quick responses

Might pop by the BMW shop today/tomorrow to measure that. Had already looked up the warrant standards and 2000k's should have been fine. The other thing that could have been the problem there is that the bike rolled over the side multiple times before it actually stopped. So the tire being worn could have something to do with the accident also I suppose.

Will query the insurance again to see if they have made progress there.

Thanks again.
Marcus

[DMNTD:Me]

Hey there,

thanks for the ultra quick responses

Might pop by the BMW shop today/tomorrow to measure that. Had already looked up the warrant standards and 2000k's should have been fine. The other thing that could have been the problem there is that the bike rolled over the side multiple times before it actually stopped. So the tire being worn could have something to do with the accident also I suppose.

Will query the insurance again to see if they have made progress there.

Thanks again.
Marcus

If they have rejected the claim essentially due to your front tyre not being of "safe standards" then I believe that it would be on them to provide the tread depth reading.
A simple formular stating that it had done xxxx-kms since its WOF should not be good enough.

I'd be asking for their proof that your bike wasn't roadworthy.

[nomnomnom]

I work for an insurance company over here, not that one but another.

In regards to a claim if they have rejected it, it is actually up to you to prove them wrong....

Similarly if you insure a car/bike for $6000 and its a write off, they can offer you a settlement of less than $6000 if assesor doesnt think said car/bike is actually worth $6000, if you disagree and want the $6000 its up to you to get a valuation to prove its worth. Lame I know!

I would suggest getting a professional opinion to state that the front tire condition did not contribute to the crash. Because if that is the case the insurance has no leg to stand on and will have to pay out.

[bsasuper]

Bugger, I was going to change to protecta this week, think ill wait a bit now and ask them more questions if I want to change

[schnupfy]

I work for an insurance company over here, not that one but another.

In regards to a claim if they have rejected it, it is actually up to you to prove them wrong....

Similarly if you insure a car/bike for $6000 and its a write off, they can offer you a settlement of less than $6000 if assesor doesnt think said car/bike is actually worth $6000, if you disagree and want the $6000 its up to you to get a valuation to prove its worth. Lame I know!

I would suggest getting a professional opinion to state that the front tire condition did not contribute to the crash. Because if that is the case the insurance has no leg to stand on and will have to pay out.

Thanks for the info here. Would you (or someone else) know a valuator here in AKL?

Thanks guys,
Marcus

[Usarka]

I work for an insurance company over here, not that one but another.
Similarly if you insure a car/bike for $6000 and its a write off, they can offer you a settlement of less than $6000 if assesor doesnt think said car/bike is actually worth $6000, if you disagree and want the $6000 its up to you to get a valuation to prove its worth. Lame I know!

Does your company not do agreed value insurance?

[blackdog]

I think its 1.5mm over 3/4 of the tyre for warrant standards,

Nope.

A minimum of 1.5mm in all parts of the primary tread grooves.

[R6_kid:Me]

They screwed my mate over once (maybe twice) before. Fight them through whatever legal avenues you can.

[Rhys]

Ask for a letter of dead lock, then take them to the ombudsman.
It costs you nothing

[The Stranger:Me]

About a week ago I got a letter from Protecta that they have rejected my claim due to the bike not being in a roadworthy state at the time of the accident with the description that the front tire was worn out.

First thing I'd do is get an opinion on the tyre. I would take it to both a tyre shop and someone who issues WOFs. Hopefully their opinions are consistent and in your favour. If not see if you can play them off and get them consistent in your favour then get it in writing from each - if possible. Would have to be difficult for insurer to argue with 2 "experts".

Was the road wet or dry?

I would suggest getting a professional opinion to state that the front tire condition did not contribute to the crash. Because if that is the case the insurance has no leg to stand on and will have to pay out.

If dry surely the front tyre would be a non issue. Tread exists to expel water, are not slicks superior in dry conditions?

If dry then the question is can a claim be denied due to failure to meet WOF standard per se, or can they deny your claim only if the defect is causative?

That said if the raod was wet and the tyre is in fact non compliant then I think he's screwed for sure.

Nope.

A minimum of 1.5mm in all parts of the primary tread grooves.

and/or there can not be any tread wear indicators showing - apparently.

[JMemonic]

Does your contract say the vehicle must be or a warrantable or road worthy state or and here is the kicker hold a current warrant? They are not the same thing, if your contract only states the vehicle must hold a current warrant and you satisfy that condition then you will be in the right, however if it states warrantable or road worthy state you may have a fight on your hands.

[p.dath]

...
5 weeks before I went on the trip I got the WoF which stated 3 mm thread left at the front tire and between WoF and accident I did ~2100km of riding....

I would definitely get someone to take a measurement ASAP - someone with a qualification like a mechanic certified to do WOF inspections (gives more credibility to your evidence).