Bike in the shop after an accident - do they have to give me a loan bike?

[James Deuce]

Not quite.
If it's not stipulated on your policy, then it becomes an uninsured loss which the insured may take up direct with the other party (or the other party's insurer).
The swiftest way to get some action would be to send the other guy an e-mail saying that you're going to charge him for a rental whilst your bike is off the road.

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

[Oscar]

It's sometimes worth a shot. I got biffed by a truck that swerved across three lanes and the Insurance company sent the truckie's insurance company a letter and they paid for my train ticket for a month while my bike was being repaired. It's certainly not a given though. I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs and only one of the SMIDSYs netted the above result. I have looked at taking out policy's that will give you an alternate vehicle but they are a bit costly, especially when I have access to public transport. The public transport costs less across the year than paying for this feature.

It's always going to be a long shot.
If it's not specifically insured (and I've never seen a bike policy with a loss of use extension), then it becomes a beef between you and the other guy (and his insurer).
I guess if you wanted to take it to its logical ending, you'd wind up in small claims.

[James Deuce]

Usually the vehicle offered is a car too. I think a bike might be a bit of a reach for most insurance companies.

[ellipsis]

...as thousands of "insured' Christchurch people will testify....having insurance does not mean you are 'really' insured in many cases...life's a trap but it's still a life...better than the alternative...

[Banditbandit]

Hi everyone, I had a crash where a driver pulled out in front of me and I hit him, the bike went down and it did some damage. He has accepted liability and it's all going through his insurance. The bike will be in the shop for about a week, possibly longer because they've got to get all the assessment as well as the repairs done. Does the insurance company have to provide me with a loan bike whilst mine is being repaired? Or do I have to pay for my own transport?

Thanks

No they don't - but check your insurance. SOME policies say that in this sort of incident the insurance will pay for a replacement transport - such as hire ...

[James Deuce]

No they don't - but check your insurance. SOME policies say that in this sort of incident the insurance will pay for a replacement transport - such as hire ...

I'm pretty certain everyone has said this at some point, however that type of response seems to infuriate millenials for some reason.

[Banditbandit]

I'm pretty certain everyone has said this at some point, however that type of response seems to infuriate millenials for some reason.

Yeah .. sorry people - I didn't read the whole thread .. I didn't even realise how big it had grown in the last few hours ... humblest apologies for repetition and redundancy ...

[James Deuce]

Yeah .. sorry people - I didn't read the whole thread .. I didn't even realise how big it had grown in the last few hours ... humblest apologies for repetition and redundancy ...

I wasn't being sarky, I promise. I have to admit to kind of scratching my head at what some people's expectations of the insurance claim process are.

[swbarnett]

I wasn't being sarky, I promise. I have to admit to kind of scratching my head at what some people's expectations of the insurance claim process are.

I think the confusion comes from some people talking about insurance and others talking about expectations of compensation from the guilty party.

I agree that these are not the same.

[Kendoll]

That's the trouble with most people these days though, everything is everybody else's fault and the world owes them a living.
I'm reading a book about it at the moment:

This book should be mandatory for every kid when they learn to read... Love it

[skippa1]

So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

What I am saying is......you have a reading and comprehension disability

get some help

[swbarnett]

What I am saying is......you have a reading and comprehension disability

get some help

Personal abuse will get you nowhere. Clarification of an apparent contradiction is all I asked for.

You suggested that "unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this" you are not entitled to "this". Therefore, an uninsured innocent party is entitled to nothing as they are not covered for anything. The question here is what one is entitled to from the guilty as compensation under law. Irrespective of their insured status.

[Berries]

I've been the recipient of four SMIDSYs and two FOWNOVAs.

Usually the vehicle offered is a car too. I think a bike might be a bit of a reach for most insurance companies.

No shit with that kind of record.

[skippa1]

Personal abuse will get you nowhere. Clarification of an apparent contradiction is all I asked for.

You suggested that "unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this" you are not entitled to "this". Therefore, an uninsured innocent party is entitled to nothing as they are not covered for anything. The question here is what one is entitled to from the guilty as compensation under law. Irrespective of their insured status.

There is no ambiguity or contradiction in my post. It is quite simple really.

the issue I take is the use of the words entitlement and/or rights.

entitlement - right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits); "entitlements make up the major part of the federal budget"
claim, title - an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

the only entitlement or rights you have, if insured, are those agreed in your policy between you and your insurer. Simple.

from a legal perspective ( and I am by no means a legal expert) if there is indeed a "right" or "entitlement" under law for those uninsured, then why would you have to take court action to benefit from it?

I do not believe that there is any legal right, or entitlement, rather an opportunity to take a civil action to try and retrieve some " out of pocket" costs.

I would also suggest that the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit awarded by the courts and the time it took to go through the system would far exceed the time you were inconvenienced.

[Owl]

Insurance companies will never do anything that is to the advantage of any insured party.

Not entirely true Jim. My experience would suggest they'll bend over backwards for you if you give them something back and/or work with them.