Market value?

[Scubbo]

but the money means nothing to you as you werent insured for the value of your bike.... you were much more likely to be in a situation where no recomp for your $10500 bike would occur --- such as, you caused the accident, the other party is uninsured or invalidates their insurance terms (no wof/bad tires at time etc etc etc) --- you are soooo fckn lucky you got a chance at getting money back as it was you who put yourself in such a bad situation --- 10K must come so easy to you to think it's not worth protecting........................................ ..........

[skippa1]

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

That's what you want.....but who says he has to? Who said that? You asked a lawyer? How about citizens advice? Did you get professional opinion from an insurance specialist?

How are you going to enforce what you want?

[MarkH]

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.

I stand by my statement!

Does it save money to not have full insurance?
Sure, if nothing goes wrong in any way.

Insurance is profitable for the insurance companies because of all the customers that insure stuff but never need to make a claim.
But, should you be an unlucky person that has an accident that writes off your vehicle then you will be worse off financially if you don't have insurance.
It is the others that aren't involved in accidents (or are only involved in a minor ding that doesn't cost a fortune) that are better off without insurance.

Having insurance is about risk management (primarily reducing variance) and also a huge reduction in stress and hassle if involved in an incident, whether it is you or the other party that is at fault.

For me insurance means I lose $492 per year, but no insurance means a potential huge swing of losing zero or maybe losing $13k - that is way too huge a variance for me to live with. I choose to moderate the risk of maybe being $13k out of pocket by choosing to be $492 out of pocket which means it would take 26 years to suffer the same loss, spread out like that the loss is much more palatable.

[ldcroberts]

That's what you want.....but who says he has to? Who said that? You asked a lawyer? How about citizens advice? Did you get professional opinion from an insurance specialist?

How are you going to enforce what you want?

Reparation for this situation: the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

[skippa1]

For redress for this situation the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

Most likely?assuming?interpreted?
what do you think it will cost to enforce? A lot more than the "saving" of not having full insurance and any additional gain you might get awarded by the court, if or when they find a slot to fit you in.
im picking you are 24 years of age or less, have a misplaced sense of entitlement and a belief that that what entitlement you have will be upheld because its right and right always wins.

[ldcroberts]

Most likely?assuming?interpreted?
what do you think it will cost to enforce? A lot more than the "saving" of not having full insurance and any additional gain you might get awarded by the court, if or when they find a slot to fit you in.
im picking you are 24 years of age or less, have a misplaced sense of entitlement and a belief that that what entitlement you have will be upheld because its right and right always wins.

It doesn't matter what it costs, if I'm right they'll have to pay those costs.

Sure it will take time.

I'm much older than you think, I got my first motorbike in 1984, and I've had to fight for my rights in the past, and yes it has a cost, and yes I've won more than I've lost. I try not to pick a fight I would lose I guess. I'm discussing all aspects and researching in preparation to represent myself.

Yes I paid cash for the bike, yes I can survive if I lose it all, yes I like the intellectual challenge of working out what's right and fighting for change in the world, it's as good a thing to do with my time as anything else.

[Big Dog]

Reparation for this situation: the most likely options are either restitution - which restores me to the situation that would have existed prior to the accident, or if that's not possible, compensation where the value is quantified fairly. In this case restitution is possible as I've outlined so it would take precedence I believe. I will double check this with a lawyer, but assuming I've interpreted the law correctly, then it will be enforceable through the district court.

Question becomes is it worth the cost of going to court x the time lost by you enforcing your claim x risk of getting nothing at all. Based on your previous statements you are les than 3k apart. You can probably negotiate an additional 2k if you follow my earlier advice. A lawyer will cost $500-1500 and the maximum judgement you will get is bike replacement cost (prob for a new one, not a run in one) + damaged gear + time off work not covered by acc or private insurance.

There is a reason it is called a settlement. They want you to settle on a price with them that is fair and equitable. If you get emotional and rush off to court without a fair attempt at arbitration you may end up with nothing.

If you get adversarial too early they have more money to spend on lawyers than you do and if you made no fair attempt at settlement a judge is likely to side with the disadvantaged party. That won't be you if you went all adversarial straight away.
If you can show via a paper trail of unreasonable offers and quotes that you are disadvantaged the judge will side with you.
Believe me they have a paper trail of every dealing with you. Including voice recordings if you abuse them over the phone.
Do you have said paper trail?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big Dog]

If you are not prepared to take the advice being offered by myself and others in this thread perhaps you should tuck your petticoat in and take some concrete pills, because you really need to harden the fuck up if your going to use the public road without insurance. Especially on $10k of what I assume is hard earned cash.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

... Especially on $10k of what I assume is hard earned cash.

At the very least ... $10k of somebody elses money ...

[Big Dog]

It doesn't matter what it costs, if I'm right they'll have to pay those costs.

Sure it will take time.

I'm much older than you think, I got my first motorbike in 1984, and I've had to fight for my rights in the past, and yes it has a cost, and yes I've won more than I've lost. I try not to pick a fight I would lose I guess. I'm discussing all aspects and researching in preparation to represent myself.

Yes I paid cash for the bike, yes I can survive if I lose it all, yes I like the intellectual challenge of working out what's right and fighting for change in the world, it's as good a thing to do with my time as anything else.

Really, sounds more like you have chip on your shoulder and are spoiling for a fight to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ldcroberts]

I you had longer off of work than you are covered for I would include this in my claim.

Sure did, extra $1500+ lost earnings. Can I really include that? the insurance guy said no on the phone they don't cover consequential losses, but he may be incorrect, and it may be up to the guy that caused the accident. Acc don't cover it anyway as it was the first week.

[FJRider]

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

Until the judge orders it ... no he doesn't ...

I had a near new vehicle, on the road, all serviced etc.

A second hand used vehicle that you want NEW price payment for ... actually.

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

So ... effectively that would also make it a second hand used vehicle ... that you are asking them to pay more for ... than a new vehicle with zero km's on the clock. And you expect them to agree to that .. ??

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

The position you are in .. is entirely of your making. You have been offered a ladder out of the hole you dug for yourself.

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

You know that option will never happen ... Both impracticable and expensive.

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

There NEVER was that option. The $9175 was offered to do what you liked with ... piss it all against the wall for all they care.

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.

It'll take a bit of digging to get yourself out of that hole you're in ... At this stage that $9k is not owed ... merely offered.

[Oscar]

Sure did, extra $1500+ lost earnings. Can I really include that? the insurance guy said no on the phone they don't cover consequential losses, but he may be incorrect, and it may be up to the guy that caused the accident. Acc don't cover it anyway as it was the first week.

Shit you don't have a clue do you?
If you are not insured, why are you asking the insurer what you can claim?
If you sustained a loss as the result of someone elses negligence, your remedy is either a negotaited settlement with the other party (or in this case his insurer) or legal remedies.
This claim should include a description of any and all losses suffered by you, not just what you think the other guy is covered for.

[ldcroberts]

Until the judge orders it ... no he doesn't ...

tell that to the next person who's beer you spill

So ... effectively that would also make it a second hand used vehicle ... that you are asking them to pay more for ... than a new vehicle with zero km's on the clock. And you expect them to agree to that .. ??

It would be improved to the point you can take it on the motorway which is what I had and what I need. Just because I put the effort in to improve it myself, doesn't mean I should lose it and it counts for nothing. If you buy a house, fix it up, then it burns down can you claim improved value? - I'm sure you can.

The position you are in .. is entirely of your making. You have been offered a ladder out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Um not my making, the other drivers making, you are getting things mixed up and trying to blame me for not having insurance to cover his actions.

[FJRider]

tell that to the next person who's beer you spill

I've never spilled $9k worth of beer ....

It would be improved to the point you can take it on the motorway which is what I had and what I need. Just because I put the effort in to improve it myself, doesn't mean I should lose it and it counts for nothing. If you buy a house, fix it up, then it burns down can you claim improved value? - I'm sure you can.

You could have taken it on the motorway off the showroom floor. Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.

Um not my making, the other drivers making, you are getting things mixed up and trying to blame me for not having insurance to cover his actions.

The risk you took. Had you got the full insurance ... you'd be riding now.