F#K my life. Another crash. I need your advice.

[jaffaonajappa]

i havent got time to read all of the thread but no wof or rego has no bearing at all on insurance payout.

it is up to the insurance company to prove that your bike was not in warrentable condition.... and the fault was the cause of the accident.

When I crashed the 9 I was not warrented and rego on hold and got a full payout from insurance.

Perhaps different insurance companies do things differently?
Wonder whats in them four pages of fine print some people have to intiial when accepting a policy....

[Latte]

Perhaps different insurance companies do things differently?
Wonder whats in them four pages of fine print some people have to intiial when accepting a policy....

Ownership of your soul. What else?

[avgas]

When I crashed the 9 I was not warrented and rego on hold and got a full payout from insurance.

Yours? If so does not fit the OPs problem.

[Latte]

Yours? If so does not fit the OPs problem.

Good point, but that also means that the insurance companies policies don't apply as he has no agreement with her insurer.

From his point of view the issues are aportioning blame to her (either by an admission or court etc) then getting the money off her. If the insurance company won't pay out, that becomes her problem, not his.

I'm in no way saying this is going to be easy, but if he's been accurate and honest, and he doesnt get caught out, he has a good chance, I would pursue it if I was in his shoes.

[reggie1198]

you'll be sweet as mate, wof/reg doesn't effect insurance, don't listen to these kb warriors who have never gone through the system without a wog/reg.

Where the wof would effect the insurance is if you failed your wof on bad tyres and then you lost traction on the road, but how hard would that be to prove!

and despite what all these nubs are saying, your tax has no ability to cause an accident. ever.

Dealing with insurance companies, can't think of anything worse! Good luck mate and don't take any BS from them.

You can ride without a wof, but only to get a wof, or repairs that will allow you to get a wof. I would think the rego is a different story, I thought that if a vehicle was on the road without a rego, all bets were off.

[sinned]

As you are not insured this is the best advice on this thtread. Don't deal with here insurance company, deal ONLY with her. She hit your bike, her insurance company didn't. Natuarlly her insurance company will be the ones to pay up in the end, but if you only deal with the driver then her insurance company has less wriggle room to get out of it.

This would be my approach - she caused the damage and will expect her insurance company to deal with the problem and you. Keep the pressure on her to pay and let her take it up with the insurance company.

The lack of WOF may be a distraction. However, you were stationary and she moved and hit you. The fact you lane split to get there shouldn't be an issue unless the activity of lane splitting contributed to the accident eg did you scare the shit out of her and as a result foot came off clutch?

Good luck

[Zadkiel]

Haha. 8 pages to finally move towards the truth.

I currently work for an insurance company and can 100% assure you there are some truths in this situation.

As mentioned earlier, the Insurance Law Reform Act dictates that if the vehicles lack of warrant is not causative of the accident than it cannot prevent payment of a claim.

The only disputable point will be liability. They may make an effort to deny their client was at fault. This is unlikely however as she has hit you from the rear, almost all cases of one party hitting another from behind is the fault of the party behind the other. They will know that and probably not bother disputing.

I wouldn't bother getting your bike assessed if I was you, it's a waste of time. They will recommend a repairer they believe you should use. If you choose to use another repairer then they will have to authorise the quote before work can commence and can refuse to accept the quote.

So basically I would chase up with them and ask if they recommend a repairer in your area so you can take it in and get a quote. Hussle them up a little and they will get it done. It would actually be more time and effort for them to screw you round than to pay you. Most of the larger insurance companies in NZ pay out over 95% of claims, including to third parties.

No point chasing her up, she isn't the one who will be paying you. Feel free to message me if you have any questions.

[The Stranger:Me]

Perhaps different insurance companies do things differently?
Wonder whats in them four pages of fine print some people have to intiial when accepting a policy....

What is in those four pages of fine print is not relavent in this case. The OP is uninsured and has no contract with the other person's insurer.
So he has no fine print to be concerned about.

He's out of pocket due to the actions of another and (based on his post) is entitled to claim from the other person.

[The Pastor]

You can ride without a wof, but only to get a wof, or repairs that will allow you to get a wof. I would think the rego is a different story, I thought that if a vehicle was on the road without a rego, all bets were off.

No, you can ride when ever you want to dude. We have a law (cant find it but im sure someone on here can) in nz which clearly states the reasons for rejection of insurance must be a causing factor of the accident.

i.e., if you are pissed and smash into a car, because you were pissed you crashed, therefore they wont pay out.

But listen to this, if you are pissed, no wof no rego, no seatbelt and just killed 2 kittens with a club, and someone crashes into you, they still have to pay out.

now if you crashed, and had no wof or rego, this did not cause the accident so they have to pay out (they might probably say "company policy is not to pay out" or some BS but this is a lie and they legally have to.)

BUT, if you have no wof, and you crashed because your brakes didn't work, then that could be a contributing factor and they probably wont pay out. It would be hard for them to prove it tho.

Now remember what a rego is, its TAX to the government, no more, no less. So this can never ever be a contributing factor to an accident.

[Mully]

Now remember what a rego is, its TAX to the government, no more, no less. So this can never ever be a contributing factor to an accident.

It's a levy - so they can stuff you for GST too.....

Anyone else thinking the woman might have been distracted (texting, etc) and her foot came off the brake?? Was the immediate thought I had.

[Scuba_Steve]

Anyone else thinking the woman might have been distracted (texting, etc) and her foot came off the brake?? Was the immediate thought I had.

I was thinking she might have looked at the wrong green either arrow or cross traffic's? but not being there is only a complete guess.

[jaffaonajappa]

What is in those four pages of fine print is not relavent in this case. The OP is uninsured and has no contract with the other person's insurer.
So he has no fine print to be concerned about.

He's out of pocket due to the actions of another and (based on his post) is entitled to claim from the other person.

Completely Agree.
But my comment was not to the OP...I quoted and replied to Cowboyz, who was discussing His crash and insurance issue. Wanted to make people consider Cowboyz post with caution......it may not be correct for other peeps insurers.

[MarkH]

What is in those four pages of fine print is not relavent in this case. The OP is uninsured and has no contract with the other person's insurer.
So he has no fine print to be concerned about.

He's out of pocket due to the actions of another and (based on his post) is entitled to claim from the other person.

That's the way I read the situation!

If Oleg was stationary then the lane split is irrelevant - he wasn't lane-splitting he was stationary in front of the insured woman and she drove into him. I'd like to know how this isn't clear-cut her fault! She must be liable, but she has insurance to protect her, so they can pay out for Oleg's damage - and I can't see any reason why they aren't liable for it.

[Mully]

and I can't see any reason why they aren't liable for it.

Simple. Because this is KB. Home of misinformation and keyboard warriors since ages ago.

[baffa]

Hey. I havent read the entire thread, but from what I saw it looks like some bad ideas being thrown out there.

Working in the insurance industry, hopefully I can give a couple of pointers.

IF she is in the wrong, your wof should not matter. After all, who's to say you're not on your way to the garage to get it done? If I hit someone on a learners license who is driving after hours, I'm still liable to pay for the damage to the vehicle. Yes, they shouldnt be breaking the law, but I caused their accident. Unless it can be proved a lack of wof or breaching license conditions etc directly caused the accident, it shouldnt affect you.

General rules of an accident:
If someone is hurt, you have to notify the police within 24 hours.

You need to get their details, and give yours, and whatever you do, dont accept liability. Generally that is for the insurance company(s) to figure out.

If you are insured, get your insurance company involved, even if you arent at fault. It wont cost you anything, but they will back you up.

Since you arent insured, it can make things a little trickier. But if you are clearly not at fault, it shouldnt be an issue.

Dont hide or lie about anything. It's the stupidest thing you can do.

Good luck, hope you can get the same parts for your bike. Dont forget to hit them up for damaged helmet and riding gear if need be.