Bike insurance - won't repair or pay enough to replace.

mattymoo

Foggytown, do you work in the insurance trade? Does the company you work for pay forecourt prices for motors? I don't know of any that do this.

I do see your point and sorry for insulting your intelligence over reinstatement / indemnity

The link I provided does give an indication that the FOS will look at forecourt prices when condition dictates, i.e. A1 pre-accident. I've never met a motor engineer yet who will offer this though.

Andysue

Beware, I wrote off one Bike in the last year & got knocked off my replacement & the insurance company wanted to write that one off too but the shop has managed to get the insurance company not to write it off.I said to the shop owner perhaps I would be better off writing it off & buying it back. No he said.If you buy it back they will not pay out on it again.In other words you buy it back, pay for your own repairs, have fully comp & if you have another accident they will not pay up as they have already paid out on the bike as it was a write off.He said insurance companies dont tell you this.

Iom-rf

Andysue wrote: »

pay for your own repairs, have fully comp & if you have another accident they will not pay up as they have already paid out on the bike as it was a write off.He said insurance companies dont tell you this.

Useful info there thanks, wasn't aware of that.

How about insuring with a different company though, would that be doable?

Andysue

Iom-rf wrote: »

Useful info there thanks, wasn't aware of that.

How about insuring with a different company though, would that be doable?

Probably because it is on the log book that it is a catagory C or what ever & you would have to tell them.

110frankie

The insurance company is trying it on.
Do not budge. Their client, from whom they took money, is in the wrong, he admits it and they admit it.
They do not have a choice, you do.
They have to either replace the vehicle - at whatever it costs, or have it repaired to the same condition it was in before their client damaged it. That's it, finish, period.

So they are trying it on, offering you write off money becuse most people will be browbeaten and give in.

It might take you months - I know one case, of a car, that took six months. You might have to go to court, but they will lose if you persist.

My guess? You will give in and settle - nine out of ten people do.

foggytown

mattymoo wrote: »

Foggytown, do you work in the insurance trade? Does the company you work for pay forecourt prices for motors? I don't know of any that do this.

Are you saying that this attitude is in respect of both third and first party claims?

I've been an independent adjuster, company claim manager/director and Lloyds Broker over a 38 year career. The one thing I've noted is that there is often a huge gulf between what insurers do and what they should do.

If, as you say, your responsibility is to put the claimant in the same financial position he was in as before the accident does this mean that you will offer to pay his time and expenses chasing around the country looking at private motors to see if they are equal to the one damaged? If the car is a total loss will you offer him the costs of a rental car while he looks around? He shouldn't have to foot these expenses because the accident wasn't his fault. He didn't start the day out looking to have his property damaged.

Too many Insurers feel obligated to try to get out for as little as possible. In property damage only claims, they rely upon the general ignorance of claimants and take their chances that the worst that will happen is that a lawyer will become involved at which point they will end up paying no more than they owed anyway. Of course when injury is involved, then they can generally be relied on to be more generous with the PD settlement.

FoggyTown

foggytown

110frankie wrote: »

The insurance company is trying it on.
Do not budge. Their client, from whom they took money, is in the wrong, he admits it and they admit it.
They do not have a choice, you do.
They have to either replace the vehicle - at whatever it costs, or have it repaired to the same condition it was in before their client damaged it. That's it, finish, period.

Actually, there is a fine but basically important point of distinction to be made. The insurer has NO obligations towards the claimant. It is their client who has the legal obligations towards the claimant and the insurer's contractual obligation towards their client is to pay what the client owes by law. That's why, unless there is some "bad faith" negotiating on the part of the insurer, you can't sue the wrongdoers insurer over an accident. You have to sue the wrongdoer and his insurer pays for his defence.

FoggyTown

mattymoo

foggytown wrote: »

Are you saying that this attitude is in respect of both third and first party claims?

My motor claims days ended in 1990 but the attitude prevailed on first and third party claims, the only difference being the salvage deduction on third party claims.

foggytown wrote: »

I've been an independent adjuster, company claim manager/director and Lloyds Broker over a 38 year career. The one thing I've noted is that there is often a huge gulf between what insurers do and what they should do.

You have a few years on me there. 20 in total including PI litigation work. Been working as a commercial risk surveyor for the last 14 yrs. From reading some other threads on this board, the gulf you mention does seem to be widening as well. Particular pet hate is domestic insurers replacement of high end AV equipment with no name brands. To their mind if a TV is LCD, 28" and has 2 scart sockets, it does not matter if it is Sony or Alba.

foggytown wrote: »

If, as you say, your responsibility is to put the claimant in the same financial position he was in as before the accident does this mean that you will offer to pay his time and expenses chasing around the country looking at private motors to see if they are equal to the one damaged? If the car is a total loss will you offer him the costs of a rental car while he looks around? He shouldn't have to foot these expenses because the accident wasn't his fault. He didn't start the day out looking to have his property damaged.

1st party claims would be no. Consequential loss not covered. Third party claims, the hire car period would normally extend beyond the date of agreeing value by a week or so. That would give time to shop around.

foggytown wrote: »

Too many Insurers feel obligated to try to get out for as little as possible. In property damage only claims, they rely upon the general ignorance of claimants and take their chances that the worst that will happen is that a lawyer will become involved at which point they will end up paying no more than they owed anyway. Of course when injury is involved, then they can generally be relied on to be more generous with the PD settlement.
FoggyTown

The TPPI element and TPPD claim together gave more scope for negotiation. With several heads of damage you could negotiate harder on some than others. The claimant tended to look at the overall figure. With TPPD only, the claimants mind is concentrated on the value of the vehicle.

Going back to the original point about vehicle values, private sale vs forecourt prices. It does of course depend on the condition of the damaged vehicle to begin with. A lower mileage, well cared for car might attract values towards upper end of range. A rustbucket nail would attract prices towards trade book price.

CazyDee

110frankie..... you were right !

I went back to Hastings Direct and said I'd have to pursue legal channels. The guy I was dealing with said he'd close his records and the legal team would take it from there.
Unfortunately since I haven't got legal cover on my 3rd party policy I can't afford the outlay - even though I'm pretty sure I've got a good case to win.

So... I've accepted their £2400 offer to pay for the repairs.
I'll have to live with a scratched mirror casing and a scratched indicator and a dented can but I'm sure I'll be able to pick up spares on ebay.
The repair company have x-rayed the bike and say its in mint condition.
I guess I'd rather take a hit financially to know my bikes frame wasn't cracked from the drop.
I wouldn't know that about any other bike I bought - especially for the full cash they were offering. Every like-for-like bike at that price seems to have been dropped!
Cat D though - re-sale might be tricky though.

Thanks for all your help and advice everyone...

My bike's due back on the 25th November and they're picking the hire bikes up today. I'll be off the road for 4 weeks but I gues that'll make getting my bike back even better!

Cheers