Market value?

[Jantar]

Nope, it's between you and his insurer.
He has subrugted all his rights and interests to his insurer in this matter.....

No it is NOT between the OP and the other driver's insurer. The other driver may have subrugated his rights and interest, but not his obligations. Also, the other driver has no rights nor interests in the OP's motorcycle that he can legally subrugate, only rights and interests in his own vehicle.
The dispute in value is beyween the OP and the other driver. The other driver is legally obligated to ask his insurance to act on his behalf, but as far as the OP is concerned, the dispute is with the other driver, and hence does not have to accept policies set by the insurance company.

[Oscar]

I understand that it's international

Some information obtained:

Reparation is a principle of law that has existed for centuries, referring to the obligation of a wrongdoing party to redress the damage caused to the injured party. Under international law, "reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed."(2)

The right to reparation is a well-established principle of international law. The International Law Commission affirmed this principle in its 53rd Session when it adopted the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.(3) The right is also firmly embodied in international human rights treaties and declarative instruments (4) and has been further refined by the jurisprudence of a large number of international and regional courts, as well as other treaty bodies and complaints mechanisms.(5)


further:

International Valuation Standards defines market value as "the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion."[1]

Market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is “the price at which one can transact”, while market value is “the true underlying value” according to theoretical standards. The concept is most commonly invoked in inefficient markets or disequilibrium situations where prevailing market prices are not reflective of true underlying market value. For market price to equal market value, the market must be informationally efficient and rational expectations must prevail.

So the guy that hit you was driving a supertanker outside the 3 mile limit?

[Oscar]

No it is NOT between the OP and the other driver's insurer. The other driver may have subrugated his rights and interest, but not his obligations. Also, the other driver has no rights nor interests in the OP's motorcycle that he can legally subrugate, only rights and interests in his own vehicle.
The dispute in value is beyween the OP and the other driver. The other driver is legally obligated to ask his insurance to act on his behalf, but as far as the OP is concerned, the dispute is with the other driver, and hence does not have to accept policies set by the insurance company.

The insurer is his "agent" in the legal sense of the word.
He is obliged to pass on any correspondence recieved from the other party.

[MarkH]

One point that I would hope was very clear to the OP and to all readers would be this:
Full insurance offers significant benefits in terms of reduced hassles & headaches in situations like this as well as accidents where you are at fault.

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.
But if a car pulls into your path and you are left with not enough time to avoid an accident then full insurance could buy you a new bike and save you a ton of hassle.

I recently have had a big improvement to my financial situation (full time employment clearing more than $600 per week) and have traded up to a bike worth $13k, fairly quickly I got onto a broker and arranged full insurance because:
a. I could afford to pay for insurance
and
b. I couldn't afford to not have insurance.

I urge others to learn from the OPs biggest mistake - have full insurance!

[varminter]

Well, this one's got me away from the TV.

Turns out the word is subrogated with an o not a u. Spell check still says it's wrong but it's not, it's a real word. See, who says you can't learn on KB.

So, what's he gonna do, can't wait for the next exciting episode. Bets taken?

[discotex]

He'll take the offer. Insurance co has his balls in a vice. Middling their slightly low assessor value and OP's slightly high dealer quote will be totally defensible as a reasonable estimate of fair market value in court.

Pretty stoked it came so close to my $9156 prediction too. As I said they'd probably throw him a bone at that amount

[Oscar]

Turns out the word is subrogated with an o not a u. Spell check still says it's wrong but it's not, it's a real word. See, who says you can't learn on KB.

Sorry about that - trying to watch the rugger AND post.

[Ocean1]

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.
But if a car pulls into your path and you are left with not enough time to avoid an accident then full insurance could buy you a new bike and save you a ton of hassle.

Actually, no insurance policy is better value than not having any insurance at all, as long as you can manage the cost of covering yourself.

If insurance companies didn't charge you more than the cost of your likely claims they wouldn't be in business very long.

[FJRider]

One point that I would hope was very clear to the OP and to all readers would be this:
Full insurance offers significant benefits in terms of reduced hassles & headaches in situations like this as well as accidents where you are at fault.




I urge others to learn from the OPs biggest mistake - have full insurance!

What he said ...

[Erelyes]

The fact that OP was uninsured means that the argument has got nothing to do with insurance.

Thank you!!!

Can the 'go and get full insurance' guys fuggoff. Had the guy been hit and run and been $9500k out of pocket due to 'liable party unknown' the point might be relevant.

In support of this I would like to add the additional information that I rode the bike in carefully as per manufacturers instructions - and that this was a difficult task that most reasonable people would consider added value to the bike - and in fact may have made the bike worth even more than the brand new 0km price to some people who would not have the time to devote to running it in and if ....

You actually thought this point had merit? Fuck Me.

This is simple. You paid $10k (not incl ORC which as we know you've consumed). They offered 9k. Rather than your verbose letter I would have simply replied saying you think $9650 is fair. Or, alternatively, they can buy a burnt orange 300 with the same or lower km's on your behalf. I would predict they will either come to the party or meet you in the middle. Either way, negotiate. I wouldn't even TALK about disputes tribunal, lawyer, etc in your first letter.

I would drop the whole public crusader thing as well, your letter will be read by someone that gets paid by the hour, you want to appear like a decent guy who wants a slightly fairer deal, not like an annoying prat who will cause headaches.

I can't get an accurate quote to straighten it in auckland - have to send it to hamilton to the experts for that, and it seems too hard really.

Exactly, forget about it, it ain't worth the headache and can of worms.

Sure, I'm not fighting as I need the extra $500 I might get, it's the principle and on behalf of others who may be more affected by this situation. The fight will no doubt cost a bit in court fees etc anyway. It's just about what is right not what is my best play for the $ at this point.

What principle exactly? Insurance companies are businesses and the end-game is to make money. It seems you think they should hold principles contrary to that. Sorry, but we live in a capitalist society these days.

Dude take my advice, walk into a pub, knock someones beer out of their hand onto the floor, tell them your theory about how it was second hand beer and not worth anything and they should have insurance, and take the lesson and learn from how they then educate you on how things work in the real world.

Beers are a consumable. Motorcycles are an asset. Your analogy is rubbish. Did you do economics at school? They covered this in 5th form (that may be year 11 to you).

The correct way to run in a bike is exactly as laid out in the owners manual. The engineers the designed and built the bike have a lot more useful wisdom than random internet people who read something somewhere that one time.

I reckon they're just trying to reduce warranty claims by conning people into riding like a sloth for umpteen thousand clicks.

[Erelyes]

You're entitled to what you can negotiate.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Oscar again.

[Big Dog]

Eod you have two choices only. Accept the offer an move on.
Work out the exact costs of the accident and offer these costs to them as a counter.


Big companies see an early threat to go public or involve courts early as a weakness. Some will happily spend more on defending unreasonable people than it would have cost them to pay out because it costs them less in the long run.

They are not a charity.

You do not employ them.

They are acting on behalf of the policy holder.

I would personally send them a polite written communication including a valuation for a replacement bike (new at 4 months) and any other items damaged. Itemised and in the form of replacement quotes. I you had longer off of work than you are covered for I would include this in my claim.
I repeat itemise everything. Pen pushers who decide on payment or not love facts, invoices writing. They hate posturing, threats, rudeness and assumptions.

Their job is to get you to move along as cheaply as they can. If they can see you know and a judge is likely to agree with you they may just stamp it to be rid if you. Some assessors decline everything that crosses the desk first time every time.

His insurance company is employed by the insured to protect him against his financial liability. If he was uninsured the judgement would include these costs.

Don't try to inflate the cost.
Don't try to intimidate them.
Don't be rude.
Do be polite.
Do be clear.
Do leave your emotions at the door when talking to them. If you can't, get an advocate to deal on your behalf.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ldcroberts]

well what it boils down to is the other guy has to put me back to how I was before the accident.

I had a near new vehicle, on the road, all serviced etc. It was run-in so that I could take it on the motorway, which I need to do to get to work (and I can't ride a brand new bike as per manufacturers run-in instructions on the motorway at 60kph).

I've got a quote from a licensed vehicle dealer to supply exactly the same bike, all run-in and serviced, same km's as my bike ready to ride on the motorway. Delivered to me for $11,600

It wouldn't put me in a better position than what I had, it would effectively be exactly the same.

The other option is to repair my bike which costs $13k+

There is no option to replace it with a second hand bike the same nor a demo bike as there are none for sale.

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for that. If I was to get $9k cash I couldn't get anywhere near back to where I was could I.

[ldcroberts]

Beers are a consumable. Motorcycles are an asset. Your analogy is rubbish. Did you do economics at school? They covered this in 5th form (that may be year 11 to you).

A vehicle is something that gets used, used up, and replaced. It's a consumable. Like anything you can buy for a business you can treat it like an asset and claim depreciation, but that's a separate issue. You could possibly buy and resell beer and treat it as an asset too, I'm picking that bars do this with their stock though I don't know for sure.

[Mike.Gayner]

I've always stated that I paid over $10,500 for the privilege of riding the bike for 4 months (more if you count petrol i suppose), and I can't ride it any more, and that I want $10k back and can accept a $500 loss, but a $1500 loss is not fair (but without the wah wah bit - I guess that was inferred).

Fair value has to be what someone will actually sell it for willingly.

You're like a pouting child.