You may be better off if you're NOT insured

[Crazy Steve]

Thanks to everyone who has been asking these questions in my absence. They are exactly the questions I have been trying to find answers for. And thanks Jetboy for answering them. I have found your answers to be careful and helpful.

It's quite unfortunate that all these things need to happen so quickly. I was concussed in the accident (I feel like I'm trying to think through a wall of cotton wool). I am also not a lawyer, and I am trying very hard to understand the complexities of insurance law while trying to get a working bike!

I think I need to clarify a few things:

1) I did not withdraw my insurance claim from John Baker insurance. When I was told by the person on the phone that I would have been better off to have been uninsured, I said I would like to withdraw my claim. She told me that I could not do that without lying to the other party's insurer. After reading Jetboy's answers above, I am still confused about whether this is the case.

2) I have absolutely no intention of lying to anybody. I don't believe I need to lie to anybody, because the facts are on my side and I have done nothing wrong.

3)

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".

Actually, the Motorcycle Insurance Proposal form I filled in when I applied for insurance asks me for the "sum insured." Nowhere does it ask me for the full market value of the bike.

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

As I said before, I am not advocating riding an uninsured bike. I am simply pointing out that in this particular case I would have been better off if I had been uninsured.

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.

Exactly my point. There was nothing on the application form that said this.

Yep, bingo. Unless you have endorsements (DG, etc), which expire more often.

Some endorsements expire when your licence does..So no Etc!!

Crazy Steve..

Thnks for the replies. Next question then.

LTSA says it costs about $40 to renew a license. Does this cover all the classes you hold or do you have to pay that amount for each class?

One amount for all Classes..

But with 2,3,4,5 you will need a Doctors cert..Which will cost around $55..

Crazy Steve

FWIK it applies to your licence in general, not the specific classes. Same sort of thing when you lose your licence, applies to all classes.

Well not really...

You can lose you HT licence for Log book infrigments..

But you are still able to drive your Car or Ride your bike..Providing you have 1,2,3,4,5,6...


Crazy Steve

[klingon]

Regarding market value:

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

Thank you for your discrestion here, Jetboy. I am happy to discuss the value of my bike on this forum. I have spoken to the assessor who says its market value is $2000 and I made it clear to him that I am going to dispute this assessment.

As I said before, the the proposal asked me for the insured sum of the bike, not the market value.

My bike is a 1995 Suzuki Volty (TU250) in black, with a black leather seat. All the chrome is intact (I should say WAS... until Monday). The bike has been kept in a garage, recently serviced, new tyres etc. There is a picture of it in my profile pic.

A black Volty sold on Trademe yesterday for $3000. It sold before I could go and look at it, but from the pictures it looks pretty much identical to mine. Here's a link: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...px?id=98657546

I spoke to Alistair Henwood at Colemans (where the Volty is now) and he said the pre-accident market value of my bike was $3000. He said he would be happy to write me a signed letter stating that value. I'm going to pick up the letter tomorrow.

I'm surprised that the assessor didn't ask me to provide any photos of the bike before the accident, or any service history. I intend to continue my discussions with him on Monday.

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.

I'm glad to hear you will be handling the claim on my behalf. So if I can provide you with evidence that the bike will cost more than $2000 to replace, you will claim that much on my behalf from the other party's insurance company?

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.

I would very much like you to help me with the claim. The only reason I attempted (unsuccessfully) to withdraw the claim was because I was told that if there was a difference between the insured value of the bike and the market value, I would have been better off to have been uninsured.

If you will be acting on my behalf, then I am very happy to provide you with additional information about the true cost of replacing my bike with one in a similar condition.

And if anyone knows of a Volty for sale in the Auckland area, with no rust or crash damage, mid-90s vintage, PLEASE get in touch with me and/or Jetboy. If I can buy it for $2000 or less I will be delighted to accept the insurance company's offer and get back on the road as soon as possible. If it's more than $2000 I'm sure my ever-helpful insurance company will pay the difference.

[jetboy]

I'm glad to hear you will be handling the claim on my behalf. So if I can provide you with evidence that the bike will cost more than $2000 to replace, you will claim that much on my behalf from the other party's insurance company?

As your bike was insured for $2,000 we will base our claim on this value, however we will definitely attempt to recover for the extra $1,000 from the other insurance company on your behalf, as we would to any "un-insured" loss any of our clients suffer.

[JimBob]

And something else to be aware of is market value and replacement value are two different things from an insurance point of view

[jetboy]

klingon I have sent you a PM on how to proceed from here.
Hopefully we can resolve this issue so all parties are happy

Let me know if you have any further questions - I have provided my direct contact details on the PM.

Tim

[klingon]

Thanks Tim, I'm very grateful for your help.

[R6_kid:Me]

If you had it insured for $20k would they have given you $20k payout at writeoff?

You would have been paying premiums for a $20k bike so i would have thought you would get the $20k... I dont think the insurance comany would see it as such if your bike was only worth $2k and they give you $20k...

I guess if you fiddle the number sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you lose out.

Also it would be worth asking what would happen if you insured it for $2k and market value was less than that, then what would they pay? If they say market value then take it to court/tribunal - they can't have double standards.

[jetboy]

If you had it insured for $20k would they have given you $20k payout at writeoff?

You would have been paying premiums for a $20k bike so i would have thought you would get the $20k... I dont think the insurance comany would see it as such if your bike was only worth $2k and they give you $20k...

I guess if you fiddle the number sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you lose out.

Also it would be worth asking what would happen if you insured it for $2k and market value was less than that, then what would they pay? If they say market value then take it to court/tribunal - they can't have double standards.

I think you are missing the point here Mr R6 kid...Here is an extract from the insurance council website (www.icnz.org.nz) which may clarify things for you:

<<----->>


Insurance exists to protect your possessions against unforeseen loss or damage. Whether you're insuring your house, car or CD collection, the basic idea is that you pay an annual premium and your insurance company will pay to replace or repair whatever items are insured if lost or damaged.

An insurance policy is a legally binding contract that demands complete honesty from both parties. If you lie or mislead your insurance company, your policy can be declared void. Likewise, if your insurance company doesn't treat you fairly, you can take your case to court or to the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman.

The underlying principle of any insurance contract is to enable you to be in the same position you were in before a loss. This is because if you were in a better position after an insurance claim there would be a financial incentive to make claims.


<<---->>

We rely on you, the insured, to tell us what your contents/car/boat/bike...whatever...is worth. Remember, we are insurance brokers not vehicle valuers. Some of us wouldnt have a clue what any particular vehicle is worth.

Does this make a bit more sense?

[jimbo600]

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

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

You can insure it for $1,000,000 and all they'll pay is current market value for the condition of the bike with that amount of K's on it. Insured value means fuck all.

[Cr1MiNaL]

well im not so sure ud be sayin that if ur bike were worth 15k and not 2 k aye!?

[slopster]

Why don't you just cancel your insurance now because you are not happy with how the company is treating you. Then you can quite honestly say that your not insured and it will be up to the other person and their insurance to sort you out.

[klingon]

Why don't you just cancel your insurance now because you are not happy with how the company is treating you. Then you can quite honestly say that your not insured and it will be up to the other person and their insurance to sort you out.

Apparently it doesn't work like that. If you had insurance at the time of the accident, you have to use it.

And just as a footnote, since Jetboy became involved and has taken the time to respond to all my questions, I'm much happier with the way my insurance company has handled it. Also apparently the same rules apply with all other insurance companies so it's not a case of how my insurance company is treating me - it's a case of insurance in general treating you like that.

The point of this thread was to draw people's attention to the fact that in a situation like this you're better off to be uninsured than to be under-insured. I had no idea that this was the case beforehand, and I hope others can learn from my unhappy experience.

As Jetboy has since clarified, there are circumstances where you can take a case for "uninsured loss" against the other party for the difference between your insured value and your true loss, but that's much more complicated and in my case I've decided it's not worth the hassle.

So my final decision has been to accept the $2000 as offered by the insurance company, and use it to get my bike roadworthy (although of course not back to its original condition).

[Pancakes]

The first point that seems to pain everyone is you have 3 choices, insure for more and pay more in premiums but only get the market value if you claim OR insure for less and then the insurance is more of a crash subsidy that cover. 3) Get your bike valued constantly and keep on adjusting your cover. I doubt it, I bought my bike for $6200 11 months ago and it's probably worth $4200 now if I had 7 days to turn it to cash.

I am currently mid-insurance claim, here's how it's going;

I went to BP in Hobsonville on Mothers Day and my bike was damaged due to a fairly large diesel spill on the forecourt (no I didn't ride through it, the bike was parked and off at the time) I don't have space for the details but I had a case for negligence and still think they are slack, nearly got into a fight with the island guy who works there and is about a head taller than me, the police can deal with that seperatly. I complained to BP and the owner finally got an email from the owner. I had to hassle the owner twice a day for about ten days to get some action but he finally got me to take the bike to Red Baron for a quote. They sent that to the owner and he forwarded it to their insurance co. They contacted me and said it's all ok to take the bike in for repairs and whats my insurance company? I was at work and got suss, told her I am fully insured (true) but don't want to involve the company as I'm not claiming from them and the damage was not my fault, why should there be a chance it is on my insurance record when I have done nothing wrong? I also said I wanted bike rental for the period of the repair. She was fine with that and the bike is getting fixed at present. If someone hits you and damages parts of your bike, I would expect the part to be repaired to the same as they were, if the repairs are less, lucky them, if they're heaps, unlucky them (or stupid for doing something where they were at fault in a crash). I don't think Klingon wanted more than anyone else would, someone wrecked his stuff and he wants what he had before they did that, not for their liability to be capped because he has agreed a lower figure with a company that is not involved in covering the cost of repairs. I'm sure if he claimed with his company he would only expect the $2000 he has listed to be paid. He's not trying to rip anyone off, just had a bike and wants the bike back, no cash or rubbish.


"OR THE LESSER OF THE TWO AMOUNTS", NEVER THE GREATER, HEH HEH HEH, THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR GIVING THE COMPANIES THE INFO WITHOUT QUESTIONING THINGS, A WAY OUT.

[jetboy]

...why should there be a chance it is on my insurance record when I have done nothing wrong?

If the claim is deemed to be "not at fault" on your part, you would not be penalised.

[90s]

The point of this thread was to draw people's attention to the fact that in a situation like this you're better off to be uninsured than to be under-insured. I had no idea that this was the case beforehand, and I hope others can learn from my unhappy experience.

Like everyone here I feel for the loss of your Volty. As someone rear-ended at a junction recently (although luckily in our car) it feels bad to be completely in the right and suffer financial loss and the loss of wheels for a time.

BUT I cannot follow you down the road you are leading above. What is your message to learn? To be uninsured? Or that in this particular circumstance you were worse of to be insured?

1) Insurance is not on a particular incident basis - but covers a large range of events. If you bike had been hit by an uninsured car, stolen, caught fire, you hit a pedestrian or a range of other things you would be far better off insured, even third-party fire and theft. OVER ALL you were still better off off insured because you were protected against a range of risks.
2) In any event it seems to turn out that using your insurance co they would recover the amount you told them the bike was worth (which was your decision to underinsure) AND then attempt to recover the difference to replacement market value.
3) Going directly to the other parties insurer would IN NO WAY mean that you would not be wrangling over the value of your bike, only this time you vs. their insurer is a lot more hassle and LESS likely to prevail than your insurer vs. their insurer.

Although this looks as though I am v. pro insurance, I have had good and bad experiences with insurance cos. over the years but generally to be insured is far safer overall. Particularly should I accidently cause and accident.

Hope the repairs go well and the volty is back on the road again.
If repairing have you thought about the tan seat? Who thinks they look pretty cool?