You may be better off if you're NOT insured

[Jantar]

Apparently you are legally obliged to claim against your own insurance if you have it. When the woman at John Baker Insurance told me that I would have been better off to have no insurance, I said "ok then, I hereby withdraw my claim!" She got very edgy and said "You can't do that! That's illegal! You'd have to tell lies to the other insurance company!"

No, I believe that you are entitled to NOT make a claim with your insurance company. You must advise them of the accident, but you don't have to make a claim. Similarly, you don't have to deal with the cage drivers insurance company, and therefore you don't have to tell lies. You are entitled to deal directly with the other driver, it is her option to deal with their insurance company if she wishes, but you are quite entitled to only deal with the driver of the other vehicle.

[McJim]

You would have saved money by insuring it for less than it's true value - unfortunately this is the pay back from that saving.

The issue is that you gave an incorrect appraisal of the bike's market value and now you're paying for it - I feel your pain really I do but this is a little bit of your own making.

As for riding with 3rd party insurance - ever been hit by an uninsured fuckwit in a 300hp skyline? Insurance is needed.

[Rhino]

For my 2 cents worth, when you signed the insurance agreement you agreed your bike was only worth $2000, end of story. Nowhere is there a box to fill out saying "partial replacement cost".
You took the risk, as you said yourself, and unfortunately it hasn't paid off.

I'm sorry Klingon, but I have to agree with Slowpoke. You made the choice to insure your bike for $2000, knowing that figure was below market value.

In the situation that occured, yes you would have got market value payout from the other persons insurance company, as they were in the wrong.

No insurance may look like a good idea, but imagine the boot on the other foot. You hit another vehicle and are in the wrong with no insurance. The other persons bike gets written off (or repaired) and their insurance company pays them out, then chases you for the money. If you had hit my 'Wing, they would be looking for over $30k at replacement value.

Do you want to take the risk of riding/driving an uninsured vehicle?

[Sanx]

Apparently you are legally obliged to claim against your own insurance if you have it. When the woman at John Baker Insurance told me that I would have been better off to have no insurance, I said "ok then, I hereby withdraw my claim!" She got very edgy and said "You can't do that! That's illegal! You'd have to tell lies to the other insurance company!"

Bullshit. And you wouldn't have to tell lies to the other insurance company. If they ask if you were insured, then tell them you were, but you choose not to make a claim against your insurance - you want to sort it out directly. That's your right. There's no requirement that says you must claim on your insurance if there's an accident.

I did that, then they changed the terms of the agreement by publishing a notice in the fracking newspaper, and I only learned they'd changed it when I read the fine print as I renewed it. So for a year I was only covered for second hand sale price. FUCKERS!
They are State insurance.

Check the terms of your policy again. I think you'll find that if they wish to change the terms or conditions of the policy, or adjust your premium, they have to give you 14 days notice at your last known address. Taking an ad out in the paper does not fulfill this condition. They'll try it on (as they did with my other half a couple of years back) but they'll eventually back down.

If you ever have to deal with State insurance, try to tape every phone call. If not, get the name of every person you deal with and write down what happened in each call immediately afterwards. Keep every bit of correspondence, and should you send anything to them, post it with track'n'trace.

State are a bunch of lying cheating cunts who'll try to get away with anything and everything.

[What?]

The real fun would start when your uninsured vehicle is demolished by another uninsured vehicle.

[yungatart]

The real fun would start when your uninsured vehicle is demolished by another uninsured vehicle.

...or when you third party insured vehicle is hit by a third party insured vehicle especially if it is the same company....they won't pay out unless the other party admits liability!

[jetboy]

Hi, I am a broker at John Baker Insurance.

1) You need to insure the bike for it's replacement value. If you insure a vehicle worth $10,000 for $5,000 - then in the event of a claim you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay $10,000 for the vehicle.

2) If you make a claim with an insurer and then decide to withdraw half way through, you must still tell any other insurer you contact for a quote/insurance that you have lodged(and then withdrawn) a claim, and that you have been involved in an accident. Most insurers have this question on their proposal form.

3) If you decide to contact the third party's insurance whether or not this third party is at fault, their insurer will ask if you have insurance, and why you are not claiming on your policy. They will then, most likely, tell you to claim on your policy.

[MWVT]

To my mind Klingon made an agreement with the insurance company on the 'insured value' of the motorcycle. I would have thought an at fault third party would have had to reinstate the damage (regardless of the scale of Klingons' policy) either personally or using their insurance.

I'm happy to concede i'm in error, if there is fine print along these lines......
Any information in this insurance application is disclosable to a third party.... blah blah blah..... and you waive any claim to more than the insured sum, including from a third party.

[steved]

Hi, I am a broker at John Baker Insurance.

1) You need to insure the bike for it's replacement value. If you insure a vehicle worth $10,000 for $5,000 - then in the event of a claim you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay $10,000 for the vehicle.

2) If you make a claim with an insurer and then decide to withdraw half way through, you must still tell any other insurer you contact for a quote/insurance that you have lodged(and then withdrawn) a claim, and that you have been involved in an accident. Most insurers have this question on their proposal form.

3) If you decide to contact the third party's insurance whether or not this third party is at fault, their insurer will ask if you have insurance, and why you are not claiming on your policy. They will then, most likely, tell you to claim on your policy.

1. Why? What has this to do with her insurance policy? If someone else hits me and damages my bike, they are replacing my bike. What insurance I have is irrelevant.

3. The insurance company can ask what they like but the reality is their client is claiming for their mistake. Klingon has done nothing wrong.


I'm a bit amazed that most people seem to think that Klingon has done something wrong. The value or whether she has any insurance is completely irrelevant in this case.

[jetboy]

G'day mate,

First of all, I'm not saying klingon is "wrong" as such, just pointing out why we did what we did.

1. That is correct - she can do what she likes. We are simply pointing out that she has lodged a claim. Yes, she has withdrawn it, but she still needs to tell any insurer she has been in an accident and lodged (and withdrawn a claim). Is klingon does not want us to help her with her claim, that's fine. We act under instruction from the client. But when she approaches the other insurer they will ask "Do you have insurance?". If she says "No" then she is not being honest, the insurer will find out if she has insurance or not and then she won't get anything. If she says "yes" then the insurer will tell her to contact us. We are happy to stay out of it, but the other insurer will ask those questions.

2. Whether or not klingon is "not at fault" is irrelevant as to which questions the third party's insurer will ask. If she tells the other insurer that she has no insurance and they do not discover that she actually has, they will still get pre-accident valuations on the bike to determine its market value.

Our job is to handle the claim on her behalf. We work for her. But we cannot pay out more than what the bike is worth. If the bike is worth $2,000 (as determined by independant pre-accident valuations) then this is the reimbursement she should be expecting.

You may be better to have third party insurance only, if you get hit by another vehicle and it's not your fault.

What happens if the person who hits you does not have insurance?

Some policies have an "uninsured third party" extension with a small limit in the policy to cover this, but what if this extension does not cover the complete value of the bike?

[steved]

Our job is to handle the claim on her behalf. We work for her. But we cannot pay out more than what the bike is worth. If the bike is worth $2,000 (as determined by independant pre-accident valuations) then this is the reimbursement she should be expecting.

Cheers for the response. I agree with your points about claiming then withdrawing the claim.

However, I fail to understand why you (her insurer) are paying anything to her. It is the responsibility of the other party or their insurance company to restore her damaged property. I assume this is the track she is now following?

[jetboy]

Cheers for the response. I agree with your points about claiming then withdrawing the claim.

However, I fail to understand why you (her insurer) are paying anything to her. It is the responsibility of the other party or their insurance company to restore her damaged property. I assume this is the track she is now following?

No worries

I will quote our policy wording which may clarify this situation:

"Section 6 - Claims Conditions

It is a precedent to the Company's liability that the following conditions must be complied with:-
......
1 b: ii as soon as possible inform the nearest office of the Company and complete a claim form and deliver it to the Company.
.....
8. If the Company covers the Insured for any loss or liability it shall be entitled to instigate, take over or defend any legal proceeding in the name of the Insured, including any claim or counterclaim, and shall have full discretion to conduct or settle such proceedings;"

When you sign a proposal you are legaly bound to the terms of the policy. So in the wording extracts above, we are entitled to handle the claim and have full discretion in doing so.

If she does not want us involved, she has to sign a statutory declaration (read: legal document) to say she does not hold comprehensive insurance. If she is not honest on this form she is making an illegal action.

It sounds more dramatic than it is.

I can't fathom why she does not want us to help her with the claim - either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations.

[steved]

No worries

I can't fathom why she does not want us to help her with the claim - either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations.

Appreciated. I know this is a curly question, but what is/was the market value of her bike? What is a Volty worth?

[jetboy]

Appreciated. I know this is a curly question, but what is/was the market value of her bike? What is a Volty worth?

I am afraid you would need to ask klingon that question - I don't want to disclose any particulars surrounding the claim.

I can tell you, however, that we get two independant valuations on the bike which is what we extract the market value from. We are only mere insurance brokers not bike valuers- to be honest I would'nt have a clue what a Volty is worth! That's why we call in the professionals.

When a client completes a proposal we ask for the market value of the bike. We rely on you, the client, to tell us what to insure it for. We do as you tell us, basically

[quackquack]

I have to say insure it for what it is worth and then add a high excess on that. This means if you are Hit the other persons insurance pays for it if you have a crash you are liable only for the first $2000 or whatever you make your excess.

You then have the best of both worlds and don't have the problem. You now are having