Insurance question

[Asher]

I have a question for the collective genius that is KB.

Last Tuesday night my friend was involved in a pretty nasty crash in Christchurch.

He was riding his brand new S1000RR down Selwin St when an elderly lady pulled a U turn in front of him.
The bike looks to be a write off with front end and fairing damage and he is currently in Burwood with a broken neck, back and pelvis.

He doesn't have insurance as he is on his restricted. My understanding of the law means that as long as he is found to be not at fault him not being on the correct license isn't grounds for the drivers insurance not to pay out.

Anyone been in a similar situation or thinks they know if he's covered or not?

[f2dz]

I think he would be covered so long as he's not at fault but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some loophole somewhere which means that he won't be.

My ol man used to sell insurance and the one thing he always tells me is that if an insurance company can come up with any way to get out of paying a claim then they will.

Be interesting to know if he'll be in with the cops for riding illegally at the time of the crash.

[Sushi Bandit]

It's up to the elderly lady who did the damage (and her insurance company) to pay. The issue will lie in whether or not her insurance company will pay out the claim for your friends bike as he was riding illegally at the time. If not, he may have to take her to the small claims court to try and get his costs back. And as the above post says, if the insurance company can get out of paying, they will.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I know the best insurance lawyer in the country if you want a referral. If you do PM me your email address - or your mate's: whatever.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's up to the elderly lady who did the damage (and her insurance company) to pay. The issue will lie in whether or not her insurance company will pay out the claim for your friends bike as he was riding illegally at the time. If not, he may have to take her to the small claims court to try and get his costs back. And as the above post says, if the insurance company can get out of paying, they will.

that seems unlikely to me. Assuming she is fully insured, and the po po attended (which they would have - injury road crash) then if she is found to be at fault (as seems likely) then her insurance should cover her. Knock for knock does not apply so they should also indemnify for the damage caused. the only realistic way for them to deny would be on the basis of contributory negligence. It seems to me that the classic JRA U turn that would be difficult to establish.

Is your mate going to walk or roll out of Burwood? that, to me, is the larger question.

[jellywrestler]

I have a question for the collective genius that is KB.

Last Tuesday night my friend was involved in a pretty nasty crash in Christchurch.

He was riding his brand new S1000RR

did he test ride the Beemer? if so then the bike shop who let him do so on a restricted licence will know where he sits on this.

[HenryDorsetCase]

did he test ride the Beemer? if so then the bike shop who let him do so on a restricted licence will know where he sits on this.

"his brand new Beemer"

ouch.

[Asher]

Yea my understanding is they can't deny a claim for riding outside your license conditions unless that somehow contributed to the crash.

The popo aren't chasing him for being on the wrong license, i guess they figure having your heart almost stop when your lying on the road is punishment enough.

No spinal cord damage luckily

[R650R]

If it was his own insurance it would be an issue as he would have had to have supplied false information to insure something outside his own license.

But the case here is of someone elses negligence in running him over, he was just in the wrong place at wrong time. Its a civil matter really that she has damaged his property and that is what she is insured for.
The only out they would have would be if the crash related somehow to a provable amount that the motorcyclist was not properly in control of the bigger machine (which would be damn hard to prove in reality).

[MIXONE]

Where's Oscar when you need him?

[Gremlin]

Just remember his case is with the driver. He has no contract with the insurance company and it's only because she involves them that you deal with them.

He's not really "covered" as he doesn't have insurance, and now he's likely to find out how much fun it is dealing with them.

Provided he is not at fault (sounds likely) then licence doesn't come into it (of course, the cops can still ticket him for breaching his licence). Assuming the lady is at fault then the costs involved are at her feet.

[Oscar]

Where's Oscar when you need him?

In Melbourne.

The Insurance Law Reform Acts say that the insurer cannot rely on an exclusion to decline a claim unless that fact is material to the claim.

So if you have a car with no WOF and you're hit by a drunk driver whilst you're sitting at a stop sign, the insurer can't decline the claim based on the lack of a warrant on your car. In other words, the fact your car had no warrant was not the cause of the claim, so it is not germain.

However, in this case the insurer will likely say that since the BMW rider was not licenced for the vehicle he was on, it could have affected his ability to stop in time.
Notwithstanding that, he should get a lawyer, otherwise he may end up without a bike and paying for the old ladies damage.

[rastuscat]

In Melbourne.

The Insurance Law Reform Acts say that the insurer cannot rely on an exclusion to decline a claim unless that fact is material to the claim.

So if you have a car with no WOF and you're hit by a drunk driver whilst you're sitting at a stop sign, the insurer can't decline the claim based on the lack of a warrant on your car. In other words, the fact your car had no warrant was not the cause of the claim, so it is not germain.

However, in this case the insurer will likely say that since the BMW rider was not licenced for the vehicle he was on, it could have affected his ability to stop in time.
Notwithstanding that, he should get a lawyer, otherwise he may end up without a bike and paying for the old ladies damage.

Always good to see some informed comment.

Contributory negligence may enter the discussion if the bike can be shown to have been going too fast. It's possible to work that out from striations on the surface.

I'd argue it though. This happens far too often.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HenryDorsetCase]

Always good to see some informed comment.

Contributory negligence may enter the discussion if the bike can be shown to have been going too fast. It's possible to work that out from striations on the surface.

I'd argue it though. This happens far too often.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did mention I know the best insurance lawyer in the country?

Injury accident (quite serious): were SCU there? was the scene secured and examined and documented properly? Or just the poor sad bastard cop that got the call, with a notebook and a tape measure?

also: striations: in what? the rider's head?

[rastuscat]

Basically gouges on the road surface.