Insurance advice about tread depth

**el_scor_cho** · 29th January 2013, 19:37

Hey all,

In a bit of strife with an insurance claim of mine.

Backstory. Was at hampton a couple of weeks back. Managed to lay my bike down mid-way through a tight turn. (Turn 3)
I was covered for the day by Star Insurance (Through Kiwibike). Dropped the bike off at my local, report came back that it was most likely a write off however the bike was not up to WOF standard. They claimed that the rear tire was not woffable. Now the rear will not technically pass a WOF however this is only due to the centre of the tire. The sides, which is was riding on at the time i lost traction, are perfectly fine (2mm plus)

Star are claiming that even though the centre of the tire was not the cause, it is likely that due to the low tread in the centre (1.1mm) the edges of the tire are possibly warped, making the tire unsafe

Kiwibike have asked me to get an independent test done on the tire saying whether or not the centre tread of the tire could have caused me to loose traction. What im after from the KB crew is some advice on a) Do I have a real case here? b) Where to get a legit independent test from someone who could give me the above?

I realise Star may possibly have a legit out here but due to the fact that I was mid-way through the turn, not on a straight, I feel my centre tread depth is irrelevant.

Many thanks in advance!

**Rhys** · 29th January 2013, 19:46

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem

**KoroJ** · 29th January 2013, 19:57

Originally Posted by Rhys

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem

*sigh*

Because you lost traction on a tyre that didn't comply to WoF stanbdards, it will be deemed a contributory factor. I think you will find that you're pushing shit uphill if you try to get the Insurers to change their mind.

**Ocean1** · 29th January 2013, 20:13

The insurer is only going to consider opinions that outrank theirs. Try talking to that particular tyre brand's importer, they should have a tech rep.

**YellowDog** · 29th January 2013, 20:55

You were riding on a track, so the tyre doesn't need to be WOFable. Many track tyres are not permitted for road usage and would not pass a WOF.

Your usage was perfectly legal and their claim is irrelevant and no more than a scam to avoid honouring their obligation to pay you. They insured you for a specific purpose, being to race around a track. Where is their clause to state that road rules apply on a track, because they do not. Track rules apply. If you'd had an off on the way to or from the track, then they would have a point. You did not.

The tyre may have had the regulation WOFable tread when you started racing. You may have worn the tyre out during high speed racing. The bike was going to be loaded onto a trailer to take it home. As things transpired, it was

The insurance company insured you to ride on a track. There will be an incident report at the track. What does it say? If the track report states that the pre-race tyre condition contributed to your spill, then where is the report? The fact is that tyres to wear out very rapidly on a racetrack. Get the marshall's report and see if there is a cause. What is the present condition of the tyre?

The insurace company has to pay. They took the risk and lost. Now they are trying to get out of their obligation to you. Read their policy. How can they prove that your tyre was below the legal limit before you started racing and also why do they believe themselves to be suitably qualified to make such a judgement?

It sounds like you are accepting their crap. Don't fall for it. Bang the policy on their desk and just demand your money. So far, they have not come up with a legitimate provable reason not to pay you.

**Jantar** · 29th January 2013, 22:01

Only my opinion, but I believe the tyre probably did contribute to the accident. Once the centre gets below minimum tread there is often little meat left on that part of the tyre carcase and the tyre can flex unpredictably. The other thing is that the tyre is no longer shapped as well as it was when it still had good tread and that can also affect the handling.

Now having said all that, if the insurance company were aware that the bike was being used on a track, and the scrutineers passed the bike as fit for the track, then the insurance company must accept that the bike, including the rear tyre, was OK when you commenced the day.

**AllanB** · 29th January 2013, 22:18

What does the policy say? Does it state that the bike must be of WOF standard when used on the track?

In all cases refer back to the written policy/agreement first.

**bosslady** · 29th January 2013, 22:25

Originally Posted by Jantar

Only my opinion, but I believe the tyre probably did contribute to the accident. Once the centre gets below minimum tread there is often little meat left on that part of the tyre carcase and the tyre can flex unpredictably. The other thing is that the tyre is no longer shapped as well as it was when it still had good tread and that can also affect the handling.

Now having said all that, if the insurance company were aware that the bike was being used on a track, and the scrutineers passed the bike as fit for the track, then the insurance company must accept that the bike, including the rear tyre, was OK when you commenced the day.

they don't scrutineer like the motott guys, they just get you to sign some registration sheet saying your bike is up to standard or whatever, they don't even check anything, that's my understanding/observations... don't wanna be blamed/involved if shit hits the fan I guess

**Milts** · 29th January 2013, 22:27

If you had been riding on slicks, would they be bitching about the bike not being up to WOF standards?

If not, how can they bitch about the tyre you used not being up to WOF standards, regardless of whether it did or did not contribute towards the crash?

**discotex** · 29th January 2013, 22:35

Originally Posted by Milts

If you had been riding on slicks, would they be bitching about the bike not being up to WOF standards?

If not, how can they bitch about the tyre you used not being up to WOF standards, regardless of whether it did or did not contribute towards the crash?

If I recall correctly, Star don't cover trackdays if you have race fairings or slicks on the bike.

**FJRider** · 30th January 2013, 07:06

Originally Posted by YellowDog

The insurance company insured you to ride on a track. There will be an incident report at the track. What does it say? If the track report states that the pre-race tyre condition contributed to your spill, then where is the report? The fact is that tyres to wear out very rapidly on a racetrack. Get the marshall's report and see if there is a cause. What is the present condition of the tyre?

The insurace company has to pay. They took the risk and lost. Now they are trying to get out of their obligation to you. Read their policy. How can they prove that your tyre was below the legal limit before you started racing and also why do they believe themselves to be suitably qualified to make such a judgement?

It sounds like you are accepting their crap. Don't fall for it. Bang the policy on their desk and just demand your money. So far, they have not come up with a legitimate provable reason not to pay you.

He may well be insured to ride on the track day. But the "Up to WoF Standard" clause is common with some insurance companies. And a WoF is required when riding a motorcycle in any public place ... or any place where public have access. Turning up at a race track and signing the waiver form ... might then deem the race track as then a "public place". Approval to ride the bike on a track day is often by a phone call made to the company informing them of your intentions. Unless your driving record is bad ... approval is usually given. But a track day ... (on a Race Track or not) ... it wont change the conditions of his (already signed) policy.

Reasonable and polite "discussion" with the Insurance company rep, may have better results that thumping a policy on their desk.

**Dragon** · 30th January 2013, 08:09

It was wofable when you hit the track you didnt realize that the tread had worn down so much and im sure you where planning on pulling in soon to check tyre condition.

You made a judgement call that the tyres where ok and had an accident, no different from misjudging the distance that a car is from you at an intersection.

You are paying an excess as you are at fault for the accident, whats to say you trying to stop didnt wear the tyre down below the wof limit ?

Are they going to try not let you claim because you where clearly breaching the speed limit that would be allowed on the road?

Hope you get this resolved because I am also insured with star insurance, I recently got my tire replaced as it was under wof standard but I didnt know that until after the bike shop told me.

Most people dont realize there tires aren't wofable unless they see no tread or belts showing (generally after the tire is past the 1.5mm point) so don't replace them until they get told at the next wof (part of the reason I dont like the idea of yearly wofs :s )

Had you lost front brakes from hoses spliting due to hard braking that you don't do on the street could they say it was due to them not being wofable?

When was your last wof?

**bosslady** · 30th January 2013, 08:11

I really hope my tYres don't get tIred anytime soon...

**sil3nt** · 30th January 2013, 08:17

Originally Posted by bosslady

I really hope my tYres don't get tIred anytime soon...

I really hope you stop posting soon.

**jellywrestler** · 30th January 2013, 08:21

Originally Posted by YellowDog

The tyre may have had the regulation WOFable tread when you started racing. You may have worn the tyre out during high speed racing. The bike was going to be loaded onto a trailer to take it home. As things transpired, it was

you must have two dicks, no-one could be that stupid playing with just one!