Market value?

[ldcroberts]

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.

I involved my insurance company initially to sort out the accident - after they talked to the other parties company and got the description off the accident off both of us, they decided he was 100% at fault and then said they would no longer be involved and I had to deal directly with the other parties insurance company.

The other parties insurance company made me sign a waiver with them to say I didn't have insurance. They then gave me a claim number and advised me to have the bike towed at their expense to my chosen repair place for appraisal. Then about 3 weeks later they came back and said it would be written off and sent me a letter offering me $9k for it. That's about when I started this thread.

I'm trying to learn as much as I can in quite a short time. On the plus side I'm a fast learner, on the minus side there is a lot of confusion and misinformation to be found too.

[Madness]

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

LMFTO! What it boils down to is you're an un-insured muppet & the other guy doesn't have to do anything.

I'm confused. You say this;

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

Then in the same post you say this. Did the dealer give you a quote for something they cannot supply, or are you drunk?

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.

Perhaps you should have taken out insurance then.

[ldcroberts]

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.

not according to the run-in as per manufacturers instructions, which limit the revs to 4000RPM for the first 800km which in top gear is 62kph, then the next 800km (i.e. up to 1600km is 6000RPM - still not 100kph). I don't make those rules, and the dealer didn't tell me until I'd paid for it, but that's how it is.

[ldcroberts]

I'm confused. You say this;
Then in the same post you say this. Did the dealer give you a quote for something they cannot supply, or are you drunk?

That dealer will take a brand new bike and get their mechanic to run it in - charging extra. That's the only way to get an equivalent bike on todays market.

[Racing Dave]

The other parties insurance company made me sign a waiver with them to say I didn't have insurance.

They made you? How, exactly? By threats? Or did they ask you, and you meekly agreed.

[russd7]

There is some really fucked up thinking goin on in this thread and i don't mean by the OP, why should he not expect to be put back to where he was before he got taken out, it was not his fault and at no point has he said he wanted more than what he had before he was taken out, there are no bikes available for sale that are of similar kms and age so there for it is up to the insurer to put him back better, why should he be worse off and whether or not he had insurance is irrelevant. he is in a position where the insurer of the other party has accepted liability.
if it were me i would be going back to them and stating the price of a new bike on the road plus helmet and if the other riding gear was ok state that you wont claim on that if they pay out in full on a new bike on the road.
why should he just bend over and get shafted, im not saying he should threaten legal action but i don't agree he should accept their offer either, he was not selling his bike so the second hand bike argument is a moot point.
The insurance company is not going to pay out on lost wages due to the accident and it is very doubtful that a judge will rule in favour of it, that is why we have ACC and i know you lose the first week wages for a non work related accident.

FJ, if you borrow something off a friend and it breaks through your negligence are you telling me you would not replace it. Or are you one of these people who say oh no that was three years old so was gonna break anyway.

[ldcroberts]

They made you? How, exactly? By threats? Or did they ask you, and you meekly agreed.

they required it before they would proceed with taking the bike to get assessed, and I was eager to get things moving.

[russd7]

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.

why would you not expect an ex300 to do motorway speeds and last, or do you think that the ex300 is a 50cc scooter just to be ridin in town

[Madness]

...whether or not he had insurance is irrelevant. he is in a position where the insurer of the other party has accepted liability.

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

[ldcroberts]

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

I'm picking this will end up with me and the other guy (or an insurance delegate representing him) in court, where the ruling covers his liability, his insurance may or may not cover all of his liability depending on his policy. This would then be a lesson to all people who have insurance to check what they are covered for.

According to his policy wording I believe it says anything up to $2m so I expect he'll be fine.

But I think people are right I don't have to play the insurance industries games, it's simple between me and him in the courts eyes.

[Oscar]

His lack of insurance is totally relevant. The other parties insurance is there to cover the liability of the insured as they (the insurers) see fit, not as the un-insured third party sees fit. You're arguing from a point of ethics in a discussion about insurance, you might as well be posting in Arabic.

Not really.
When it comes down to it, this is a simple case of legal liability to be proven (or otherwise) either by party to party negotiation or legally.
For him to couch his losses in terms of the other guys insurance policy is very silly.
What would have happen if the other guy's insurance had a Third Party excess (rare but not unheard of)?
"Oh well, your cover doesn't pay the first thousand, I'll pass on that.." Of course not, that would become a matter between the two parties, just like any other uninsured losses, like loss of income or an insurance settlement that the OP thought was inadequate.

He is not a party to the other fellas insurance and cannot be bound by it.
Even his declaration of non-insurance is merely a way for the insurer to abide by the Knock for Knock agreement, and means very little.
He is not required to deal with the other guys insurer (although if he didn't it would slow things down considerably), he is quite entitled to continue dealing directly with the individual that caused the damage (and of course that individual would be bound by his contract with the insurer, and obliged to pass on all correspondence to that insurer).

[skippa1]

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.

Right got it now. You're a muppet that acts like a 19 year old, speaks in riddles and must be related to another kb member called Cassina.

[FJRider]

FJ, if you borrow something off a friend and it breaks through your negligence are you telling me you would not replace it. Or are you one of these people who say oh no that was three years old so was gonna break anyway.

So ... the person that ran into him was a friend of his ... nice one. Is that what friends do these days ... no wonder they offered the money ...

[FJRider]

I'm picking this will end up with me and the other guy (or an insurance delegate representing him) in court, where the ruling covers his liability, his insurance may or may not cover all of his liability depending on his policy. This would then be a lesson to all people who have insurance to check what they are covered for.

All that will be mentioned in court is hi legal liability (and offers made to you and were refused. In Court ... what his insurance policy may contain is between the insurer and the insured.

The Insurance delegate will have done his job ... they leave the court stuff to lawyers ...

The lesson is for those with no insurance.

But I think people are right I don't have to play the insurance industries games, it's simple between me and him in the courts eyes.

But the Judge decides ... just be sure to make the same claims and statements to the judge ... as you made to us.

You'll be fine ... honest ...

[quickbuck]

Why you got (and expect) an EX300 to do consistent motorway speeds (and expect it to last) is beyond me.


.

Actually they will with no problems..... Wish more people would realise this instead of thinking they need to buy a 600 or 1000.......

But as you were.....