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

[Oscar]

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)

It may require court action, but only as a last resort. You should also bear in mind that any court action would require the other guy's insurer to respond, an expensive exercise that they'd rather avoid.

As I said - just because it's not covered by your insurance, doesn't mean it isn't covered by his. When you make a claim, you're claiming on Section One of the policy i.e. damage to your vehicle, which is usually restricted to the vehicle only (+ maybe riding gear). When the other guy claims, and is deemed to be at fault, the damage to your vehicle is covered under Section Two - Legal Liability to Third Parties. This opens the claim up to more than the damage to your vehicle.

You have every right to say to the other guy - "I have some uninsured losses that I think you are responsible for..perhaps you could take it up with your insurer" He would be hard pressed to argue this, since his insurer has accepted liability for his actions (by paying for the damage to your vehicle). He is in fact contractually obliged to pass on such correspondence to his insurer as he has subrogated his rights to the claim process under the terms of his policy (to his insurer) by making the claim. Sending a copy of the correspondence to the guy's insurer wouldn't hurt.

If this fails, a small claim action against the guy would certainly drag his insurer in.

[Daffyd]

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

Enlighten me guys; what's a FOWNOVA?

[FJRider]

It may require court action, but only as a last resort. You should also bear in mind that any court action would require the other guy's insurer to respond, an expensive exercise that they'd rather avoid.

As I said - just because it's not covered by your insurance, doesn't mean it isn't covered by his. When you make a claim, you're claiming on Section One of the policy i.e. damage to your vehicle, which is usually restricted to the vehicle only (+ maybe riding gear). When the other guy claims, and is deemed to be at fault, the damage to your vehicle is covered under Section Two - Legal Liability to Third Parties. This opens the claim up to more than the damage to your vehicle.

You have every right to say to the other guy - "I have some uninsured losses that I think you are responsible for..perhaps you could take it up with your insurer" He would be hard pressed to argue this, since his insurer has accepted liability for his actions (by paying for the damage to your vehicle). He is in fact contractually obliged to pass on such correspondence to his insurer as he has subrogated his rights to the claim process under the terms of his policy (to his insurer) by making the claim. Sending a copy of the correspondence to the guy's insurer wouldn't hurt.

If this fails, a small claim action against the guy would certainly drag his insurer in.

Taking action in the small claims court is the usual method for such small (relatively speaking) costs ... and a letter from your Insurance rep telling you the other party is at fault/admitting responsibility (the later preferred) will be of immense help in being awarded costs.

Most insurance type court cases tend to get stalled by the insurer of the alleged person responsible ... time wasting to ensure loss of will/interest to continue.

It is usual for insurance claims to be dealt with ... between the insurance company's themselves. The only input the claimants of either party make is filling out the forms and admitting/denying guilt ... something most company's prefer.

[Oscar]

Taking action in the small claims court is the usual method for such small (relatively speaking) costs ... and a letter from your Insurance rep telling you the other party is at fault/admitting responsibility (the later preferred) will be of immense help in being awarded costs.

Most insurance type court cases tend to get stalled by the insurer of the alleged person responsible ... time wasting to ensure loss of will/interest to continue.

It is usual for insurance claims to be dealt with ... between the insurance company's themselves. The only input the claimants of either party make is filling out the forms and admitting/denying guilt ... something most company's prefer.

Please re-read my post (actually the whole thread).
We're taking about uninsured losses.


As for "stalling tactics" you've been reading too much John Grisham.
The only cases that actually get to court are ones where liability is disputed.

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.

[skippa1]

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.

Hey......I have already said that at least twice

[Oscar]

Hey......I have already said that at least twice

Sometimes it has to be said more than once around here...

[russd7]

Notwithstanding that in the case being discussed, court action would be a waste of time. The lawyers would charge more that the alternate transport.

small claims court = no lawyers and is in front of an adjudicator (usually a judge but not always).
accidents whether your fault or not are always gonna cost you in some way or another that cannot be claimed back from the other person, unfortunately
its a tough shit situation and all you can do is vent your frustration and move on with your life