Need Questions Answered about Insurance?

[Oscar]

oh well..... get paid to put up with guys like that at work.

so outside work it gives me a chance to speak my mind

I have no problem with people contributing – search this site and you’ll see I’ve posted stuff about insurance and finance that I wrote and was originally published in Kiwi Rider.

This guy sets himself up as an expert and has made several errors of fact/law.

Not only that, when someone disagrees, he gets hissy…the only thing he’s got dead right so far is his red bling to me where he’s says I’m arrogant. I am..

[Speedracer]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

[Oscar]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

A good example of stupid underwriting.
The theft risk has nothing to do with riding experience.
Do you know a broker?
Or call Star.

[Jantar]

and if you say any road law broken can be classed as illegal. i was meaning ones that can be classed as a criminal offence. main ones being, speeding, dangerous driving and driving under the influence.

None of these are criminal offences. These three offences are covered by the Transport Act, not the Crimes Act. They can only be treated under the Crimes Act when they are a cause of an offence under the Crimes Act. eg. dangerous driving causing death.

[NSR-Dan]

just 1 question though

I have insurance with AA, but because I haven't had my full license for 4 years and I have a 250cc bike they won't insure it. (not even just theft the bastards)
Apparently if I got a 150 they might consider it. (seemed purely cc based)

Is it possible to get even just theft insurance for a powerful 250cc bike eg cbr, I'm 22 and on my restricted...

statistics and company portfolio for motorcycle risks. the main reason high underwriting guidlines are set on certain risks is because companys cant finantialy afford to take on higher risks, thats why companys like AA will only insure people that have more experiance. money made from car insurance premiums is kept for car claims. so if a company doesnt have many people with bikes paying premiums they have to protect themselves but imposing higher underwriting guidlines, not generaly premiums as they have to stay compeditive

Think of it this way premiums for 10 people with cars say $300 for a year each and 1 has an accident that cost $3000 to repair, the business makes no money. so its better to not take on a higher risk, with bikes main one being inexperianced riders.

some one with 2 years riding experiance with will be more likely to crash then someone riding 4 years, most kb member will tell you that. also with the 150cc being a posability, get 2 learner riders and put one on say an fzr150 and the other on a NSR250, the one riding the nsr will be more likely to crash than on the fzr due to it being heavier more powerfull ect. also remember most underwriters are not experts on bikes cars ect and make all there decisions on statistics given to them by the LTSA so there not making guesses.

insurance companys dont make much money and rob people with "high" premiums.

and can people not listen to oscar. he doesnt work in insurance and i doubt never has. someone who has read some policy books and thinks they can answer all your questions is just silly, you can go do that yourself.

so oscar if you want to answer people's questions, go make your own thread, and if you try and argue that you think im wrong. how about let people make up there own idea and put your point of view across, dont try and say everything i say is wrong.

[NSR-Dan]

None of these are criminal offences. These three offences are covered by the Transport Act, not the Crimes Act. They can only be treated under the Crimes Act when they are a cause of an offence under the Crimes Act. eg. dangerous driving causing death.

yeah you know what i mean. the serious ones you can be prosecuted for.

no one is goin to summon you to a court hearing for following to close etc unless you do it 20 times or you were racing the guy infront of you lol.

[NSR-Dan]

(not even just theft the bastards)

its becuase AA doesnt have a policy for "theft only" on bikes or cars. doesnt exist never has done. nothing in the system to work on too, so they wouldnt even be able to work out a premium for you.

[Oscar]

and can people not listen to oscar. he doesnt work in insurance and i doubt never has. someone who has read some policy books and thinks they can answer all your questions is just silly, you can go do that yourself.

so oscar if you want to answer people's questions, go make your own thread, and if you try and argue that you think im wrong. how about let people make up there own idea and put your point of view across, dont try and say everything i say is wrong.

Bwahahahaha.
You complete knobend.
Not only do I work in insurance (as a Senior Broker specialising in Liability Issues) , I've worked on the development/creation of half a dozen motorcycle schemes since the '80s including franchise specific ones and lately eBike.


As for making up my own thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=2373

....been there done that.

[Oscar]

statistics and company portfolio for motorcycle risks. the main reason high underwriting guidlines are set on certain risks is because companys cant finantialy afford to take on higher risks, thats why companys like AA will only insure people that have more experiance. money made from car insurance premiums is kept for car claims. so if a company doesnt have many people with bikes paying premiums they have to protect themselves but imposing higher underwriting guidlines, not generaly premiums as they have to stay compeditive

Think of it this way premiums for 10 people with cars say $300 for a year each and 1 has an accident that cost $3000 to repair, the business makes no money. so its better to not take on a higher risk, with bikes main one being inexperianced riders.

some one with 2 years riding experiance with will be more likely to crash then someone riding 4 years, most kb member will tell you that. also with the 150cc being a posability, get 2 learner riders and put one on say an fzr150 and the other on a NSR250, the one riding the nsr will be more likely to crash than on the fzr due to it being heavier more powerfull ect. also remember most underwriters are not experts on bikes cars ect and make all there decisions on statistics given to them by the LTSA so there not making guesses.

insurance companys dont make much money and rob people with "high" premiums.

This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.

The problem within the insurance industry is the "Knock for Knock" agreement - this is a holdharmless agreement between most insurers (I don't think AA are a member) whereby they only pay for their own insureds damage, notwithstanding who's at fault. Fault is only determined to see who gets to pay uninsured losses (i.e. the excess).

The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

[scumdog]

This is complete crap.
Even our friends at the LTSA admit that the majority of car v. bike accidents are the car drivers fault.
The upshot of this agreement is that motorcycle insurers do not recover their losses from car insurers, hence motorcycle loss ratios look very bad...

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?

[Oscar]

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?

I'll ask the guys at Classic Cover and come back to you.

[Jantar]

But not all motorbike crashes involve another vehicle, from what I have seen/heard a shitload ares-up on loose gravel, overcook a corner etc, does anybody know what percentage of bike crashes they occupy?

And what percentage of claims are single vehicle (motorbike) crash claims?

I saw some research carried out in England that showed the largest percentage of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents, however the great majority of these did not result in injury or sufficient damage to make the insurance statistics.

The age old statitistic "90% of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" is a misquote and should have read "collisions" not "accidents". The origional study was carried out on behalf of the ACU, and only involved multi vehicle accidents, not single vehicle accidents. From memory the actual figure was less than 90%, but that sounded better than the mid 80s figure that was produced.

The warning was printed on the old ACU competition licence as a reminder that we have to watch out for the other vehicle as they are not looking for us.

[Ixion]

Bwahahahaha.
You complete knobend.
Not only do I work in insurance (as a Senior Broker specialising in Liability Issues) , I've worked on the development/creation of half a dozen motorcycle schemes since the '80s including franchise specific ones and lately eBike.


As for making up my own thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=2373

....been there done that.

Ah. eBike? Then may I ask you a question ? I rummaged through the site, just seeing how much various combinations would cost (lots!).

But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.

Now, this seems a bit tricky to me. Especially for older bikes. Does this mena that if you put the rego on hold while you were doing a rebuild (as happens), and the bike was stolen or lost in a gargre fire , the insurance would not pay out, because it was not registered (probably not road worthy either, cos, eg, the engine was removed ) ?

Or if you were in an accident and your rego had expired the isnurance company could avoid liability .Even though registration is a tax thing, and could not have any bearing at all on an accident. A roadworthy/current WoF I can accept - but registration?

Care to comment?

[Oscar]

Ah. eBike? Then may I ask you a question ? I rummaged through the site, just seeing how much various combinations would cost (lots!).

But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.

Now, this seems a bit tricky to me. Especially for older bikes. Does this mena that if you put the rego on hold while you were doing a rebuild (as happens), and the bike was stolen or lost in a gargre fire , the insurance would not pay out, because it was not registered (probably not road worthy either, cos, eg, the engine was removed ) ?

Or if you were in an accident and your rego had expired the isnurance company could avoid liability .Even though registration is a tax thing, and could not have any bearing at all on an accident. A roadworthy/current WoF I can accept - but registration?

Care to comment?

Yup.
Firstly I should say I have no association with eBike now (it's being run out of Australia).


This is good example of what our young friend got so wrong earlier.

What the policy says is one thing, what NZ law says is another.
Under the Insurance Law Reform Act, an insurer would be pushing it uphill to decline a claim based on lack of registration. They would have to prove that the lack of rego was a contributing factor to the claim (tricky).

[NSR-Dan]

Under the Insurance Law Reform Act, an insurer would be pushing it uphill to decline a claim based on lack of registration. They would have to prove that the lack of rego was a contributing factor to the claim (tricky).

If its an exclusion in the policy that the car must be road worthy and have a registration, then they company can decline a claim regardless if its not a contributing factor to the claim.

most companys will have this exclusion, as noticed by Ixion.

But, I also read the policy terms. And one of them required that the insured bike(s) be maintained in roadworthy condition, and registered, at all times.