You may be better off if you're NOT insured

[Sanx]

I also agree that the situation is of Klingon's making ... however:

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 Yes, she has withdrawn it, but she still needs to tell any insurer she has been in an accident and lodged (and withdrawn a claim).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.

Provided Klingon's honest with the third party, then she shouldn't have a problem. They may very well tell her to make a claim on her insurance, but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to. The third party insurer may not like it, but they will still have to sort out the claim.

Klingon has no contractual relationship with the third party insurer (assuming, of course, the third party is not insured with the same insurer) and they therefore cannot insist she do anything. They can make life bloody difficult, but they'll have to deal with it eventually especially if Klingon wants to take it through the dispute tribunal or small claims courts.

As has been said though - all this could have been avoided quite easily by simply insuring the bike for what it was worth.

[jetboy]

I also agree that the situation is of Klingon's making ... however:



Provided Klingon's honest with the third party, then she shouldn't have a problem. They may very well tell her to make a claim on her insurance, but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to. The third party insurer may not like it, but they will still have to sort out the claim.

Klingon has no contractual relationship with the third party insurer (assuming, of course, the third party is not insured with the same insurer) and they therefore cannot insist she do anything. They can make life bloody difficult, but they'll have to deal with it eventually especially if Klingon wants to take it through the dispute tribunal or small claims courts.

As has been said though - all this could have been avoided quite easily by simply insuring the bike for what it was worth.

I hate to say it but this is incorrect.

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss. She cannot truthfully sign this document.

klingon does not have a contractual relationship with the third party insurer, but she does with her insurer - in this case, us.

Again, I cannot understand one's logic for choosing to bypass us (?!?!) as we work for the client. The only way (as far as I can see) for her to bypass us is to approach the third party direct - but chances are the third party will involve their insurer...would'nt you?

She will have more luck in recovering her costs through us then if she went out on her own.

but there's no requirement for her to do so if she chooses not to

Yes, there is - I will cut/paste an extract from page 2 of this thread:

"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;"

Why would one want to bypass their insurer? If the accident is not your fault then there is no loss of no claims bonus, no excess payable and we recover as much of your loss as we can.

[Toaster]

Here's what I did... works a treat with insurance.

Value your bike at what it would cost to get a replacement. Easy done.

Exactly. Wise words and an obviously sensible answer.

[JimBob]

Interesting
A couple of things you could clarify please
Is Klingon required to make a claim with her own insurance company?
Does having insurance and making a claim stop her from claiming from the other driver the difference between the insurance payout and market value?

I would of thought that in the first instance her claim was against the other driver. If she doesnt wish to pursue that she can claim against her insurance company.

"either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations" isnt this the problem, she wont? (assuming mv is more than $2000)
I can certainly see if she was the only one involved, she only gets what she insured the bike for, but when someone else is involved their insurance should pay out market value. Arent you effectively claiming from the other insurance company on her behalf? and if the other party has normal 3rd party it will cover the volty at market value irrespective of her insurance with you?
1st party is the other driver, 2nd party is their insurer, 3rd party is klingon for whom you are acting?

Thanks for the info

[jetboy]

Is Klingon required to make a claim with her own insurance company?

Generally - yes. Sometimes you are able to settle "out of insurance" if both parties agree to the outcome of the settlement. In this case the insurers will no doubt be involved...if I were the third party I would definitely claim on my insurance!

Does having insurance and making a claim stop her from claiming from the other driver the difference between the insurance payout and market value?

In most cases the payout will be the market value or the sum insured as stated in the insurance schedule (provided to your insurance company by you), whichever is the lesser. So if you have the correct market value listed then there is no need to claim on any difference, because there won't be any. We will assist our clients in recovering the outstanding amount in the event that we have been provided an incorrect market value - but the most the other insurer will pay is market value.

I would of thought that in the first instance her claim was against the other driver. If she doesnt wish to pursue that she can claim against her insurance company.

That is correct - but once the other driver gets their insurer involved then it becomes an insurance matter.

"either way she will be paid out the market value of her bike according to pre-loss valuations" isnt this the problem, she wont? (assuming mv is more than $2000)

You would need to refer to klingon for the market value of her bike. I am unable to disclose this information.

I can certainly see if she was the only one involved, she only gets what she insured the bike for, but when someone else is involved their insurance should pay out market value. Arent you effectively claiming from the other insurance company on her behalf? and if the other party has normal 3rd party it will cover the volty at market value irrespective of her insurance with you?

Correct - to a degree. If the market value of the bike is more than the insured value then we would do everything we can to recover the difference...and it is likely the other insurer would co-operate. If the bike was written off she is also entitled to the value of the wreck. Remember - she will not be paid more than the market value.

1st party is the other driver, 2nd party is their insurer, 3rd party is klingon for whom you are acting?

To us the first party is klingon, third party is the other driver. Vice versa with the other insurer.

[Sanx]

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss. She cannot truthfully sign this document.

I'd like to see the basis for that requirement. Is it a requirement in law, or do insurance companies just require you to sign it before they'll process the claim. I simply cannot see why there should be a law governing that people address claims through there insurance companies. There are plenty of decent reasons why I might not choose to go through my insurer should I suffer a loss, fault or no fault.

Klingon may be asked to sign a statutory declaration stating she has no comprehensive insurance - and signing it saying she does not would be an offence. However, I don't believe she can have her claim refused simply because she chooses not to go through her own insurance.

Again, I cannot understand one's logic for choosing to bypass us (?!?!) as we work for the client. The only way (as far as I can see) for her to bypass us is to approach the third party direct - but chances are the third party will involve their insurer...would'nt you?

I agree fully. I was speaking in general terms about insurers, rather than your good selves. As most people know, for the vast majority of insurance firms, their customers' needs and wishes come pretty far down the list of factors to consider.

Yes, there is - I will cut/paste an extract from page 2 of this thread:

"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;"

By not lodging a claim(or in this case withdrawing it), she's absolving her insurance company of any liability. If the insurance company does not have liability, then this clause does not apply.

Why would one want to bypass their insurer? If the accident is not your fault then there is no loss of no claims bonus, no excess payable and we recover as much of your loss as we can.

Agreed. I can't see why anyone would bypass their insurance company. or, for that matter, why one would insure a bike for less than its market worth.

[Jantar]

If she goes to the third party insurer to recover costs, it is a legal requirement for her to sign a declaration stating she did not hold comprehensive insurance at the time of loss.

Not correct at all. If she choses to deal directly with the other party, she is quite entitled to. The other party may have a clause in their insurance which allows their insurer to deal on their behalf, but Klingon can not be held party to an agreement between that other party and their insurance company.

If you believe that it is a legal requirement for Klingon to sign such a declaration, please refer us to the relevent legislation. Note I said "Legislation" not "Insurance Company Requirements".

[jetboy]

I'd like to see the basis for that requirement. Is it a requirement in law, or do insurance companies just require you to sign it before they'll process the claim. I simply cannot see why there should be a law governing that people address claims through there insurance companies. There are plenty of decent reasons why I might not choose to go through my insurer should I suffer a loss, fault or no fault.

Klingon may be asked to sign a statutory declaration stating she has no comprehensive insurance - and signing it saying she does not would be an offence. However, I don't believe she can have her claim refused simply because she chooses not to go through her own insurance.

The form must be signed in conjunction with the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. This document must be signed infront of a JP. Because of the way insurance works behind the scenes you must go through your insurer.

I agree fully. I was speaking in general terms about insurers, rather than your good selves. As most people know, for the vast majority of insurance firms, their customers' needs and wishes come pretty far down the list of factors to consider.

...which is why you deal with a wonderful guy like me

By not lodging a claim(or in this case withdrawing it), she's absolving her insurance company of any liability. If the insurance company does not have liability, then this clause does not apply.

It is not that simple unfortunately. This all depends on when a client withdraws a claim (if at all), and the circumstances. I will not go too much into this.

Hope this clarifies things.

[JimBob]

hey Jetboy
thanks for that. Makes sense to me.
So really the fact Klingon has underinsured her bike in this case is neither here nor there. You would be liable for a max of $2000 and if the market value of her bike was more than you will assist her to recover the difference from the other party.
Sounds fair enough to me.
cheers
(I hope I got that right)

[jetboy]

Not correct at all. If she choses to deal directly with the other party, she is quite entitled to. The other party may have a clause in their insurance which allows their insurer to deal on their behalf, but Klingon can not be held party to an agreement between that other party and their insurance company.

If you believe that it is a legal requirement for Klingon to sign such a declaration, please refer us to the relevent legislation. Note I said "Legislation" not "Insurance Company Requirements".

Ok guys I am pulling the plug on this set of questions. I am not a lawyer - ask one if you want exact legislation.

All I am saying is the insurer requires you to sign the declaration. If you lie on the declaration then you are being dishonest and charges can be bought about, claims are voided etc.

You need to know how insurance works behind the scenes to fully understand why insurers have requirements like this.

Besides (again), why would you want to bypass your insurer? What good does that do?

[Matt_TG]

I am an Insurance Loss Adjuster, and must admit to only skimming over the previous posts, but I will make this comment..

You are NOT obliged to claim on your own insurance, however you then take matters into your own hands and cannot rely on your insurers to sort matters out in a timely and cost effective manner.

You ARE however uninsured ... for the value of the bike over and above what you covered it for. Remember you are also uninsured for your excess. So you can lawfully sign a declaration of non - insurance for the part of the risk you were carrying yourself.

You could argue therefore that the third party insurer's obligation is to pay YOU the uninsured amount first (excess and value over $2,000) then your insurers can under subrogation, recover what they feel they are entitled to from the third party insurer.

Then you need to factor in what the wreck's worth, as if you are not indemnified completely you may be entitled to proceeds from its sale...

[Grahameeboy]

Is it an agreed value policy? If not check what your policy wording says. If it says 'Market Value' which is $2,500, I am not sure the Insurers can argue (they will) about paying you $2,500 because they say they will pay market value but check General Conditions.

At end of day you declared the value as your estimated one.

It is worth checking.

.


Then you need to factor in what the wreck's worth, as if you are not indemnified completely you may be entitled to proceeds from its sale...

To clarify, say bike is worth $3,000, you get $2,000 and the salvage is worth say $250 you will get the max of the difference between the insured value and the market value but no more, in this case $250.

But the Insurer will incur a salvage fee which they will deduct so you are better off just keeping the bike.

Just had a sqeeze through the policy wording and it does say max payable is the market value or sum insured which ever is the lesser.....a lot of private cage Insurance do not have this.

But the 'Sum Insured' does not include GST (Limits do because they are a max) so this should be added to the $2,000 so you are entitled to a max of $2,250 plus and salvage entitlement under 'Old English Law'

[Matt_TG]

Just had a sqeeze through the policy wording and it does say max payable is the market value or sum insured which ever is the lesser.....a lot of private cage Insurance do not have this.

But the 'Sum Insured' does not include GST (Limits do because they are a max) so this should be added to the $2,000 so you are entitled to a max of $2,250 plus and salvage entitlement under 'Old English Law'

Well said that man.

Also if that's still not enough to meet the value of the bike you shouldn't have to pay the excess, as effectively that's the first part of any loss, and you've worn that. Then keep the bike and sell its parts off.

[gunnyrob]

I've just gotta say that you have to insure your bike for what it's worth. After looking around, John Baker insurance offers some pretty good deals compared to others. (BMW wanted $890, Jetboy sorted me for $700)

BTW I'll never deal with state again. Rip off ba$tard$

[Thumper]

Having skimmed through this thread I feel compelled to add my 2c worth. Surly things are much simpler than they seem.

1. The third party has driven into Klingon’s bike and has admitted fault.

2. Klingon may choose not to make a claim against her own policy as many of us do when we weigh up paying an excess and loosing a no-claim discount’s etc. etc..

3. Klingon’s claim is against the third party to return the motorcycle to its pre-accident condition.

4. At this stage the third party may run off to their own insurance company but Klingon is under no obligation to engage the third parties insurance company. There is no obligation to sign any forms, complete any questionnaires or even speak to the third parties insurance party because as already stated, Klingon’s claim is not against the agent of the third party but the third party themselves.

I admit that its probably a whole lot more difficult to try and get full replacement value directly from the third party yourself (short of sending round some big fellas) and this is the service that insurance brokers are offering as part of the service you pay for (not the big fellas).

Otherwise you could get a quote or two from the local bike shops to replace or repair your bike then go around to the third parties home with your paperwork and demand that they cover the costs realising you are more than likely going to end up pursuing your claim in the courts without the support of your insurance company or broker.

Ok so it was only 1c worth.........