Motorbike Insurance

rudekid48

jondavis30 wrote: »

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).

.

This is the key point. As things stand this is not yet down as a 'non-fault' claim as liability is still in dispute. This means that the OP has claimed against his own policy and the insurer is not currently able to recover the outlay so they are treating it as a 'fault' claim.

Norman_Castle

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

OnanTheBarbarian

Norman_Castle wrote: »

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

Not the original premium as that was an expense that would have arisen regardless of a claim or not.

But the premium that will have to be paid to insure the replacement bike (assuming the current insurers will not allow the new bike to be added to the existing policy) is claimable as far as I am concerned.

SimonSays

Norman_Castle wrote: »

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

Potentially not. As the insurance has done its job and indemnified. If ERS record this as FAULT (This is why what Brentwood says is important as if theyve said settled - disallowed then its a fault claim EVen then most bikers will argue its never their fault!!)

SimonSays

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

But the premium that will have to be paid to insure the replacement bike (assuming the current insurers will not allow the new bike to be added to the existing policy) is claimable as far as I am concerned.

It maybe as your concerned but it all depends what the legal assistance can claim back. I personally would say no. As if there was an unacceptable change during the year then you could claim from the intermediary.

Norman_Castle

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Not the original premium as that was an expense that would have arisen regardless of a claim or not.

But the premium that will have to be paid to insure the replacement bike (assuming the current insurers will not allow the new bike to be added to the existing policy) is claimable as far as I am concerned.

I dont thing the new policy should be paid by the third party insurer but the proportion of the lost insurance should be covered by them. Th op will be paying for a years insurance but not receiving it due to the third party.

OnanTheBarbarian

Well put it this way, I work for a RTA Claimant firm and I deal with ULR claims and PI claims all day long.

If a client came to me in this situation, providing there is evidence to support my client's allegations of negligence against the other party, I would have no hesitation in seeking recovery of a 2nd insurance policy premium in the event the original policy came to an end upon payment of the total loss claim.

legal cover makes no difference as the cover ain't worth the paper it is written on, which is why brokers get the product free or pay at worst 50p a unit. Reason being the LEI never pays out any costs, but that's another story.

Norman_Castle

SimonSays wrote: »

Potentially not. As the insurance has done its job and indemnified. If ERS record this as FAULT (This is why what Brentwood says is important as if theyve said settled - disallowed then its a fault claim EVen then most bikers will argue its never their fault!!)

You're jumping to conclusions. Read the question!!!

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

OnanTheBarbarian

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I dont thing the new policy should be paid by the third party insurer but the proportion of the lost insurance should be covered by them. Th op will be paying for a years insurance but not receiving it due to the third party.

No, the insurance was a contractual obligation the OP had, whether there was a claim or not, so a proportion of the original premium would not be recoverable. It was a separate commercial obligation they had - a duty to keep continuous insurance in place for their taxed motor vehicle.

It is when they have then essentially had to pay a 2nd insurance policy premium for the new bike that they incur a loss/ expense that was in addition to their original financial commitments that a loss consequential to the accident arose.

Norman_Castle

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

No, the insurance was a contractual obligation the OP had, whether there was a claim or not, so a proportion of the original premium would not be recoverable. It was a separate commercial obligation they had - a duty to keep continuous insurance in place for their taxed motor vehicle.

It is when they have then essentially had to pay a 2nd insurance policy premium for the new bike that they incur a loss/ expense that was in addition to their original financial commitments that a loss consequential to the accident arose.

The loss is the continuation of their current policy.