Test riding a bike - no insurance cover

[CookMySock]

The only thing that has been covered here a dozen times is the fact that you are a tool.

This public name-calling business only makes you look weak and out of control. Keep your dirty mouth in check and focus on the problem at hand, rather than putting people down you disagree with.

Steve

[sleemanj]

Insurance companies will try to recover money in any way they can, fair enough, that's their business.

If I were your friend, I would formally write a letter to the insurance company indicating your intention to not pay as you dispute that you have any liability to the insurers, and invite them to take him to the disputes tribunal (or where-ever) if they so desire.

Likely that's how it would need to be resolved anyway.

[Oscar]

This public name-calling business only makes you look weak and out of control. Keep your dirty mouth in check and focus on the problem at hand, rather than putting people down you disagree with.

Steve

Maybe if you thought before posting stupid advice, people wouldn't feel obliged to point out what a tool you are.

Where did you get this from?

It is standard operating procedure for the insurance company to bluff you into paying up. You have no legal obligation to pay them anything.

The idiots guide on how to get sued?

BTW - Dirty mouth?
If I had a dirty mouth, I would have called you a fucking tool.

[Oscar]

Insurance companies will try to recover money in any way they can, fair enough, that's their business.

If I were your friend, I would formally write a letter to the insurance company indicating your intention to not pay as you dispute that you have any liability to the insurers, and invite them to take him to the disputes tribunal (or where-ever) if they so desire.

Likely that's how it would need to be resolved anyway.

Excellent advice.
Also send the insurer a copy of whatever your friend signed, or his recollection of what he signed and/or was told by the dealer.

[YellowDog]

If an excess has been paid, what has it been paid for?

Insurance one would presume and hence the end of any arguament.

If they believe they have a case, then where is the signed paperwork?

Also, if you paid $1k then what does the receipt paperwork say?

Sounds really dodgy.

Name and shame!

[Oscar]

If an excess has been paid, what has it been paid for?

Insurance one would presume and hence the end of any arguament.

If they believe they have a case, then where is the signed paperwork?

Also, if you paid $1k then what does the receipt paperwork say?

Sounds really dodgy.

Name and shame!

The excess is the uninsured portion of any claim (i.e. the bit that the dealer must pay). So if you pay it, you are admitting that the accident was your fault. And since you're not a party to the insurance, paying it, in itself, could be construed as an admission of liability, because if you're liable for the dealers bit, you're liable for the rest, too.

[YellowDog]

The excess is the uninsured portion of any claim (i.e. the bit that the dealer must pay). So if you pay it, you are admitting that the accident was your fault. And since you're not a party to the insurance, paying it, in itself, could be construed as an admission of liability, because if you're liable for the dealers bit, you're liable for the rest, too.

Ok - So it's not an excess, it's a down payment.

[Matt_TG]

Bear this in mind ...

The contract of insurance in this case is between the owner of the bike (or who is legally liable for the loss - it could be under a dealer / finance agreement), which is the Bike Shop; and the insurance co.

The excess is the part of the claim that the insured (the Bike Shop) must bear. It's effectively the first part of the loss that is uninsured.

The Bike Shop asked your friend to pay the uninsured part, which they did. This was a private arrangement between the Bike Shop and the Test Rider, nothing more.

The Insurance Co settled the claim, and in doing so, took on all rights that the Bike Shop had as owner (called subrogation), and therefore gained themselves the right to pursue costs from the third party, the Test Rider.

They can do this - the Bike Shop agreed to it when they took out insurance. It's an essential part of Law.

To me the Test Rider's beef is with the Bike Shop.

My suggestion to the Test Rider is to look into what representations were made by the Bike Shop. IF the Bike Shop inferred (by way of a document or verbally - both a 'contract') that any mishap would be limited by the amount of the excess only, the Test Rider could take that further against the Bike Shop at Disputes. That principle is essentially wrong as insurers can pursue, they are not allowing for subrogation to occur.

Another aspect is to look to is whether the Test Rider becomes an "Insured Party" by agreeing to test ride the bike. Perhaps the policy of insurance extends the "Insured" to include test riders (if not it should be looked at), the same as a construction policy can extend to include subcontractors. If this is the case then Insurers cannot recover costs from the Test Rider as he is now an Insured, not a Third Party.

Messy messy messy. Good luck, this can be a minefield.

[steve_t]

So really the dealer should say "You break it, you buy it"?

[YellowDog]

So really the dealer should say "You break it, you buy it"?

No.

The dealer should say that; before you take a test ride do fully consider that whilst the bike does have insurance cover, you will not be covered in any way shape or form and hence any damage is down to you.
(though I suspect that the insurance company would have covered any third party)

I wouldn't pay on the grounds that I was lead to believe that the bike would be insured and my totally potential liability was $1k.

[Matt_TG]

So really the dealer should say "You break it, you buy it"?

Pretty much

[Matt_TG]

I wouldn't pay on the grounds that I was lead to believe that the bike would be insured and my totally potential liability was $1k.

That's the stance the Test Rider should take

[AllanB]

Another aspect is to look to is whether the Test Rider becomes an "Insured Party" by agreeing to test ride the bike. Perhaps the policy of insurance extends the "Insured" to include test riders (if not it should be looked at), the same as a construction policy can extend to include subcontractors. If this is the case then Insurers cannot recover costs from the Test Rider as he is now an Insured, not a Third Party.

Bloody good post

I've always 'presumed' possibly quite wrongly that the bike shops insurance would indeed cover you as an insured or nominated rider, thus no responsibility beyond the initial excess ($1k appears standard). This will need to be clarified on any future test rides.

Again, what shop in CHCH?

[Kickaha]

If I had a dirty mouth, I would have called you a fucking tool.

And you would have been right

[The Stranger:Me]

I suggest you read that again - most policies say that if you are driving another car that is uninsured, then any third party damage you cause is covered (but not to the car you're driving).

There are of course different wordings. The intent was not to suggest all are the same. But unless that ASB wording has changed in the last 6 months you are covered for the vehicle you are driving too if it is not your own.
It was not intended as all emcompassing iron clad advise and people should check their own policies.
It was intended to say that this is available and should you desire it.