Insurance claim question

[FJRider]

The CAB do not give out legal advice, they get someone (lawyer) in once a week (Thursdays 7pm for birkenhead), to answer your questions, but you only get like 10-15mins with him, and i doubt hes an insurance lawyer.

But you WOULD get 10-15 min's of good advise ...

[LBD]

duck off back to Russia you communist!

:
We dont want him...we are a budding democracy...

[The Pastor]

But you WOULD get 10-15 min's of good advise ...

but why would I go, this is kb! The place where everyone is an expert!

[FJRider]

but why would I go, this is kb! The place where everyone is an expert!

KB is where lawyers are trained ...

[MarkH]

2. The insurance co representing the other party has no power to 'write off' RM's bike - the insurance company simply has to pay for the damage done by their client surely.

Nope, they insurance company has to do no such thing.

They do have to offer fair compensation for the loss that the aggrieved party has suffered - which could mean offering to take the broken bike and give enough money to buy another bike similar to the pre-crash bike.

IF the bike was worth $2K and IF repairing it would cost $7K THEN paying $2K for the victim to buy another bike IS fair. That is what the insurance company would be offering to do.

[MarkH]

Yeah you understand, Is it unfair to ask them to fix my bike to pre accident condition? I really cant see how it is unfair, but everyone, including NAC insurance seem to think so.

If your bike is worth $2K and to repair it would cost $7K then there is no way you will get them to repair your bike - they will offer to pay for a replacement instead as it is uneconomical to repair it. You may want the bike repaired, but an insurance company does not see that option as financially feasible - a court is likely to agree with them.

The only way around it is to show that your bike is not worth $2K, i.e. you can't buy the same as what you had for $2K, therefore being paid $2K by the insurance company is not satisfactory. If you can show that getting the same as what you had would cost $7K in repairs or >$7K for another bike then you have a shot of getting satisfaction.

If you can show that buying another bike and adding the same mods to it would cost $6K and then agree to accept $6K + keep your broken bike then you could use $1K of your own money to cover the difference. It may seem unfair to you that you should be out of pocket by $1K, but in this example you are refusing what the insurance company would say is a fair offer and most likely the courts would agree with them.

If a new bike worth $18K would cost $24K in parts & labour to fix then most people wouldn't see it as being unreasonable of an insurance company to offer to buy the owner of the damaged bike a new bike as a fair compensation. This is the way the insurance companies work - they try to give you back what you had for the cheapest price.

If your bike has been damaged and you could buy another one that was pretty much the same for $2K then you just aren't being reasonable if you insist that the insurance company give you $7K so you can have it repaired. They are just going to say that it isn't worth $7K and therefore 'fuck you'.

[tigertim20]

Unbelieveable. Did either of the two previous posters read the thread?

1. RM isn't talking about making a claim - he is the uninsured (but not at fault) party.

2. The insurance co representing the other party has no power to 'write off' RM's bike - the insurance company simply has to pay for the damage done by their client surely.


The other party however is obliged (if they are found to be at fault) to compensate the $2000 bike with the $5000 worth of mods (as they are responsible for that damage).....Yes....?

bollocks. spending money on your bike does not necessarily increase its value. this is real life. would you pay 7k for a 2k bike with a bunch of mods just because the seller really really liked his bike? No, You wouldnt, youd pay what you thought it was worth, as supported by similar models and market conditions. If payouts were based on 'oh but ive done this, and this and this to it', then can you imagine how much more insurance fraud thered be?

They will write it off - why should they cough up $5,000 more than the bike is worth/insured for when they can write it off and hand you $2,000.

This IS real life, not a freakin kindergarden.....

exactly, no matter how much you desperately WANT it to be 'worth' more, the reality is different. Hug you mum, wipe away your tears, take your cheque for 2k and get over it.
In the future such things can be avoided by A) getting insurance so that you have someone to argue for you, and B) informing your insurance company of any mods,and discussing having these mods seperately insured and having it documented.

He doesn't have a market value contract with an insurance company (though the at fault party might).

He wants the bike rebuilt to spec - not a pay out. ie: Strip the broken bits, straighten said bike out or replace with OEM parts, and replace the aftermarket goodies Harris pipe, Ohlins shock, rizoma rear sets etc etc etc

FFS it's not that hard is it?

You are looking at this from an 'I want' angle rather than a 'this is the real world' angle.
A write off is an agreement by the insurance company to purchase the vehicle, based on its value pre accident.
its value pre accident was about 2k, regardless of how many hours, dollars, or virgins tears went into it.
They will offer to buy it at the cost of what it was worth if it was sold on the open market/trademe etc. its quite simple really!! its not about what you WANT, its about what is sensible and economical.

its not at all about whether he had a contract for its value, its about how much it was ACTUALLY worth, not how much, YOU feel its worth to YOU.

[tigertim20]

put it this way.
take a bike worth 2k.
buy the following:
carozzeria wheels for another 3k
exhaust system for 1k.

total money spent may be 6k, however, when you sell that bike on the market, its value WILL NOT be the total sum of all dollars spent.

What about that do you not understand, or is ''short circuit' more literal than humorous?

[The Pastor]

If your bike is worth $2K and to repair it would cost $7K then there is no way you will get them to repair your bike - they will offer to pay for a replacement instead as it is uneconomical to repair it. You may want the bike repaired, but an insurance company does not see that option as financially feasible - a court is likely to agree with them.

The only way around it is to show that your bike is not worth $2K, i.e. you can't buy the same as what you had for $2K, therefore being paid $2K by the insurance company is not satisfactory. If you can show that getting the same as what you had would cost $7K in repairs or >$7K for another bike then you have a shot of getting satisfaction.

If you can show that buying another bike and adding the same mods to it would cost $6K and then agree to accept $6K + keep your broken bike then you could use $1K of your own money to cover the difference. It may seem unfair to you that you should be out of pocket by $1K, but in this example you are refusing what the insurance company would say is a fair offer and most likely the courts would agree with them.

If a new bike worth $18K would cost $24K in parts & labour to fix then most people wouldn't see it as being unreasonable of an insurance company to offer to buy the owner of the damaged bike a new bike as a fair compensation. This is the way the insurance companies work - they try to give you back what you had for the cheapest price.

If your bike has been damaged and you could buy another one that was pretty much the same for $2K then you just aren't being reasonable if you insist that the insurance company give you $7K so you can have it repaired. They are just going to say that it isn't worth $7K and therefore 'fuck you'.

Thanks for the reply, you sound like you know what your talking about.

So if someone dose $7,000 worth of damage, they only pay out $2,000.

I have actually spent like 14k on the bike :S So basically I just have to hope no one crashes into me, as I'd end up losing my bike.

[short-circuit]

bollocks. spending money on your bike does not necessarily increase its value. this is real life. would you pay 7k for a 2k bike with a bunch of mods just because the seller really really liked his bike? No, You wouldnt, youd pay what you thought it was worth, as supported by similar models and market conditions. If payouts were based on 'oh but ive done this, and this and this to it', then can you imagine how much more insurance fraud thered be?

exactly, no matter how much you desperately WANT it to be 'worth' more, the reality is different. Hug you mum, wipe away your tears, take your cheque for 2k and get over it.
In the future such things can be avoided by A) getting insurance so that you have someone to argue for you, and B) informing your insurance company of any mods,and discussing having these mods seperately insured and having it documented.


You are looking at this from an 'I want' angle rather than a 'this is the real world' angle.
A write off is an agreement by the insurance company to purchase the vehicle, based on its value pre accident.
its value pre accident was about 2k, regardless of how many hours, dollars, or virgins tears went into it.
They will offer to buy it at the cost of what it was worth if it was sold on the open market/trademe etc. its quite simple really!! its not about what you WANT, its about what is sensible and economical.

its not at all about whether he had a contract for its value, its about how much it was ACTUALLY worth, not how much, YOU feel its worth to YOU.

FFS. Firstly I am not arguing the worth of the bike.

AND again, how an insurnace company pays out customers in the event of an uneconomical loss is irrelevant as RM is not insured. His property (a blinged out 250) was damaged by the other insured party.

The other party is liable. Either Mr Head or his insurance company must compensate RM. The question is: If RM wants the bike repaired to original standard and with all the aftermerket parts (and the repair and sourcing of parts is possible), will the other party (or their insurer) be liable for the cost of doing this.

[The Pastor]

put it this way.
take a bike worth 2k.
buy the following:
carozzeria wheels for another 3k
exhaust system for 1k.

total money spent may be 6k, however, when you sell that bike on the market, its value WILL NOT be the total sum of all dollars spent.

What about that do you not understand, or is ''short circuit' more literal than humorous?

yeah but in my head, I have built a bike (there is no stock parts on it left at all) and i have put years of work into in. YEARS. And what people are basically saying is that I could lose that, due to no fault of my own.

At any rate, I'd fight it every step of the way

[The Pastor]

If your bike is worth $2K and to repair it would cost $7K then there is no way you will get them to repair your bike - they will offer to pay for a replacement instead as it is uneconomical to repair it. You may want the bike repaired, but an insurance company does not see that option as financially feasible - a court is likely to agree with them.

The only way around it is to show that your bike is not worth $2K, i.e. you can't buy the same as what you had for $2K, therefore being paid $2K by the insurance company is not satisfactory. If you can show that getting the same as what you had would cost $7K in repairs or >$7K for another bike then you have a shot of getting satisfaction.

If you can show that buying another bike and adding the same mods to it would cost $6K and then agree to accept $6K + keep your broken bike then you could use $1K of your own money to cover the difference. It may seem unfair to you that you should be out of pocket by $1K, but in this example you are refusing what the insurance company would say is a fair offer and most likely the courts would agree with them.

If a new bike worth $18K would cost $24K in parts & labour to fix then most people wouldn't see it as being unreasonable of an insurance company to offer to buy the owner of the damaged bike a new bike as a fair compensation. This is the way the insurance companies work - they try to give you back what you had for the cheapest price.

If your bike has been damaged and you could buy another one that was pretty much the same for $2K then you just aren't being reasonable if you insist that the insurance company give you $7K so you can have it repaired. They are just going to say that it isn't worth $7K and therefore 'fuck you'.

Can I argue sentimental value?

[short-circuit]

put it this way.
take a bike worth 2k.
buy the following:
carozzeria wheels for another 3k
exhaust system for 1k.

total money spent may be 6k, however, when you sell that bike on the market, its value WILL NOT be the total sum of all dollars spent.

What about that do you not understand, or is ''short circuit' more literal than humorous?

See my previous post downsy

[scumdog]

I have actually spent like 14k on the bike :S So basically I just have to hope no one crashes into me, as I'd end up losing my bike.

Insure it for an agreed value.

The premiums might cause your pulse-rate to increase particulalry if you're young and have colected a few tickets, had a crash or two...

And they would want it kept in a locked garage when not in use etc etc.

But a 14k bath when the bike caught fire and burned to ground or got flattened by a truck when it was parked would cause me bottom lip to quiver a tad...
u

[FJRider]

So if someone dose $7,000 worth of damage, they only pay out $2,000.

It may amuse you to learn ... I once did $5000 worth of damage to a $500 truck ... and I didn't pay a cent of that ...

Yep ... it was written off ...