Bike in the shop after an accident - do they have to give me a loan bike?

[swbarnett]

Thanks you for your post. This clears up any confusion I had about what you were saying.

There is no ambiguity or contradiction in my post. It is quite simple really.

the issue I take is the use of the words entitlement and/or rights.


the only entitlement or rights you have, if insured, are those agreed in your policy between you and your insurer. Simple.

Surely this is only true is you are at fault? If I understand correctly, when you're not at fault your insurer only acts as a conduit the the other party or their insurer.

from a legal perspective ( and I am by no means a legal expert) if there is indeed a "right" or "entitlement" under law for those uninsured, then why would you have to take court action to benefit from it?

Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.

I do not believe that there is any legal right, or entitlement,

You may well be right in this. Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.

rather an opportunity to take a civil action to try and retrieve some " out of pocket" costs.

If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.

I would also suggest that the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit awarded by the courts and the time it took to go through the system would far exceed the time you were inconvenienced.

Of this I have no doubt. It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

[cynna]

i wasnt allowed one when i waited 6 months for parts after an accident was covered - was told the cost of insurance would skyrocket if loaner bikes were part of full insurance

[skippa1]

Thanks you for your post. This clears up any confusion I had about what you were saying.


Surely this is only true is you are at fault? If I understand correctly, when you're not at fault your insurer only acts as a conduit the the other party or their insurer.


Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.


You may well be right in this. Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.


If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.


Of this I have no doubt. It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

This could go around in forum circles forever.
Bottom line is, try it....go on, I dare you. You will be as disappointed as I was when an accident happened and I couldn't get any help with transport when not at fault......on more than a couple of occasions( I'm an old cunt). The moral sense of entitlement when you have done nothing wrong, will still turn into a big fat nothing. Go on.....try it

[FJRider]

Perhaps because even if you are entitled to something under law not everybody will blithely give it to you; a legal clarification is required followed by an order to pay.

You are entitled to what conditions you agreed to ... by you signing your insurance policy ... not what any "Joe Bloggs" agreed to in signing their insurance policy ...

Even if a moral obligation exists on the other's part to reimburse all incurred costs.

If there is only a "Moral obligation" ... you are allowed to ask for that obligation to be fulfilled. And they are allowed to refuse to comply. If they choose ... and if no precedent to the contrary has already been set ...

If no legal right exists then a civil action should not find in your favour.

Funny that ... but it has happened ... (Don't ask-don't get)

It is one of the fundamental problems with the "justice" system. Justice is only available to those that can afford to fight for it.

Fighting and winning is the easy bit (with or without money) ... actually getting the "Losers" to pay up ... is another thing ...

[swbarnett]

Guys, it seems that it may not be absolutely clear what I'm asking so let me restate the question in a way that may be clearer:

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

[FJRider]

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

Take a read of this ...

http://www.nzila.org/conferences/doc...20Insurers.pdf

[skippa1]

Guys, it seems that it may not be absolutely clear what I'm asking so let me restate the question in a way that may be clearer:

The question essentially boils down to whether the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages under law (as opposed to what's agreed to with either party's insurancce company). Let's leave aside for a moment any thought to the practicalities of actually receiving said damages. It seems to me that what the innocent party is legelly entitled to from the guilty party is irrespective of what either party has agreed to from their insurer (just like there are clauses set down in law that cannot be negotiated out of an employment contract). If the guilty party is not insured for consequential damages to the other party (to the extent that the innocent party is entitled to under law) then it will, in theory, have to come out of their own pocket.

So, to recap the question again, does NZ law state that the innocent party is entitled to consequential damages from the guilty party after an accident that results in the loss of use of a vehicle?

I don't think this is a yes or no question. I doubt there is a written law covering such circumstance. Entitlement to repair of your damaged vehicle is clearer, again as you say, dependant on the guilty parties ability to pay.
consequential damage is far harder to quantify, replacement transport, loss of earnings, embarrassment, etc is far more subjective.
Again, entitlement, either by law, by right (moral) or otherwise is a matter a court could rule on, the cost of persuing this is most likely higher than the award of any damages, if any are awarded. Let's face it, if they can't afford insurance, they won't be able to compensate you for consequential damages.

[FJRider]

Let's face it, if they can't afford insurance, they won't be able to compensate you for consequential damages.

If you are (fully .. ??) insured ... your insurance Company has to pay as per the contract you signed with them. Regardless of fact that the other party was at fault and not insured. It is then usual for your Insurance Company to chase them for payment. But it is not dependent on their paying ... to get your vehicle repaired.

The policy for repair is between you and your insurance company (end of story). And any other claims to the guilty party needs court action. It may be wise then ... if you talk to your insurance rep about what extra costs they might claim against them. Using the bluff of a (large .. ??) insurance company to add (implied) weight to your claim.

[skippa1]

If you are (fully .. ??) insured ... your insurance Company has to pay as per the contract you signed with them. Regardless of fact that the other party was at fault and not insured. It is then usual for your Insurance Company to chase them for payment. But it is not dependent on their paying ... to get your vehicle repaired.

never said any different

The policy for repair is between you and your insurance company (end of story). And any other claims to the guilty party needs court action. It may be wise then ... if you talk to your insurance rep about what extra costs they might claim against them. Using the bluff of a (large .. ??) insurance company to add (implied) weight to your claim.

Forget the vehicle repair. It's about consequential damages.....a vehicle for you to use because yours is getting fixed due to the other parties error.

[Theantidote]

insurance companies are staffed by fuckwits with over inflated egos bordering on ...i don't know...my experience with insurance companies regardless of the situation is they'll try and screw anyone ...especially the ones they assume are weak ...
look up the history of how we ended up with the insurance scam ...then check your house insurance policies, your life insurance policies and no doubt you'll find the you're pretty well screwed regardless ...
buy a cheap bike, don't get insurance, don't crash and you'll be laughing...
just my opinion ...which may or may not be your perception of my reality ...

[FJRider]

Forget the vehicle repair. It's about consequential damages.....a vehicle for you to use because yours is getting fixed due to the other parties error.

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.

[skippa1]

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.

Ummm. That's exactly what I have been saying all along.

best preach to someone that disagrees with you

[Oscar]

If that is not mentioned specifically in your insurance contract (regardless of who is at fault) ... that is not an option automatically given ... as of right.

The contract is with YOUR insurance company. They are the people to discuss such things with.

Any attempt to ask (guilty) parties (directly) for such will be met with laughter. As they are not legally required to meet such requests without due process of law.


However ... SOME bike shops do/can provide a loaner bike to use when your bike is being repaired. Those requiring such should ask their vehicle repairer about what conditions this would/could apply to (and conditions of) ... and would be an easier (cheaper) option than court action.

You are confusing legal liability with what's covered by your insurance policy.

The contract with the insurer is for damage to his bike, not consequential loss.
Coverage for consequential losses usually only appear on commercial motor insurance, and then as an expensive option.
Although on (very rare) occasions, an insurer may seek uninsured losses from the third party's insurer, they are not legally obliged to do so.
So by all means ask your insurer, but I doubt that they'll do anything.

After that, the best advice is for you to approach the third party directly requesting recompense for travel costs.
As this is covered by Section Two (damage to third party property) in his policy, he should then pass this on to his insurers.
If that fails, then a small claim court visit might be in order (and again, the other guy's insurer will have to front this).

[swbarnett]

Thanks Oscar, this answers the question precisely.

[FJRider]

You are confusing legal liability with what's covered by your insurance policy.

The contract with the insurer is for damage to his bike, not consequential loss.
Coverage for consequential losses usually only appear on commercial motor insurance, and then as an expensive option.
Although on (very rare) occasions, an insurer may seek uninsured losses from the third party's insurer, they are not legally obliged to do so.
So by all means ask your insurer, but I doubt that they'll do anything.

After that, the best advice is for you to approach the third party directly requesting recompense for travel costs.
As this is covered by Section Two (damage to third party property) in his policy, he should then pass this on to his insurers.
If that fails, then a small claim court visit might be in order (and again, the other guy's insurer will have to front this).

Nope ... I stated anything not actually listed in your policy may require court action to resolve. ...and are those things you discuss with your insurer when you make the claim. With stated declaration that you prefer to an out of court settlement in this regard.

Approach the "Guilty" party directly and await the laughter ... or ... get a claim of harassment against you. If a court case does eventuate ... such claims (regardless how false) will go against you. Go through official channels (ie: A Lawyer) cross the t's and dot the i's ...

If you insist on directly approaching the accused/guilty party ... go with proof of the appropriate laws (in writing) to which you base your claim. Not just a list of things you want (or hoping for)