Motorbike Insurance

jondavis30

I took out a motorcycle insurance policy with Bikesure (the broker), who insured me with equity red star (insurer).

My motorbike has been declared a write off following a non fault accident (yet to be proven pending a witness statement as the third party has lied to his insurance company stating that he did not change lanes when he did).

I telephoned bikesure for some quotes on a new bike, however, they told me that equity red star require full payment of the current policy, and it HAS to be cancelled, not transferred to another vehicle.

I don't understand how this can be standard practice - I had a Fault accident about 3 years ago and I kept my insurance policy and just changed the vehicle, the following years premium went up, though, due to the claim.

What they are effectively saying is - that I cannot insure any other vehicle with them until this policy is paid off, I cant even simply transfer the insurance to another vehicle.

Is this standard practice ? It seems a little off to me.

OnanTheBarbarian

Different insurers have different terms. Worth checking your policy booklet, but it is certainly not uncommon for them to offset the balance of instalments from the write off settlement.

Some policies do state that the cover ends in the event of a total loss claim, so you could pay to insure the bike today for say £300 premium, bin it tomorrow and claim the write off value and then have to take out a new policy. In effect paying £300 for 1 day insurance cover.

SimonSays

Well it all depends what scheme at ERS you was insured on, ERS2000 their most common one has different options.

Sounds like You've gone really cheap and theyve set the policy to be cancelled in the event of a total loss. This is common, Generally not with ERS to be honest but when customers cut the bottom line so much ERS will impose such terms. (Highway are big on cancelling in the event of a total loss)

As for paying the rest of the premium again correct. Do you expect them to say "Oh its fine, we've indemnified youve not paid the premium thats fine" - get real if you believe that!

Norman_Castle

If the other driver is at fault could this be claimed from them as a consequential loss?.

SimonSays

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If the other driver is at fault could this be claimed from them as a consequential loss?.

Not really. As insurance has served it purpose and if nothing would have happened the insurance would have been paid.

OnanTheBarbarian

I would disagree.

But for the accident, the Claimant would not have essentially had to pay for 2 insurance policies within a 12 month period.

SimonSays

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

I would disagree.

But for the accident, the Claimant would not have essentially had to pay for 2 insurance policies within a 12 month period.

You can disagree.

When customers screw that bottom line they get policies like this. ERS Are the better underwriters who allow transfers to another bike IF they are on a proper ERS scheme and not one where that bottom line has been screwed so much theres no movement.

The insurance has paid out. The customer has been indemnified If they would have changed bike the same situation would have arose.

The customer could have changed bikes. Moved address lots of things could result in the customer having an unacceptable change where they need to get a new policy In your eyes does that mean they can claim from the intermediary?

Norman_Castle

SimonSays wrote: »

Not really. As insurance has served it purpose and if nothing would have happened the insurance would have been paid.

And cover would have continued.

OnanTheBarbarian

I think you are missing my point.

I don't dispute that when you screw the bottom line and buy on price that you are going to get a basic no frills policy which can sometimes be a false economy, but......

If this punter took out a policy for 12 months and due to the negligence of someone else, their vehicle was written off 1 month into the policy and they are then contractually obliged to pay the full premium to receive the indemnity, the policy then stopping once the total loss payment is made....

This leaves the claimant significantly disadvantaged in essentially having to pay for another policy within the 12 month period, which they would not have had to do so, but for the negligence of the tortfeasor.

I'm confused by the 3rd para of your post, which suggests you are saying if they made a mid-term change to the bike on cover they would have had to start a whole new policy?

SimonSays

OP. How has Equity red star settled this? It sounds like theyve settled as fault. What does the paperwork from Brentwood office say?

SOunds like theyve either settled as non fault or are fighting liability.

SimonSays

Norman_Castle wrote: »

And cover would have continued.

Or the customer could have done anything.

What you have to remember is when you screw the bottom line you're not getting full service policies.