Cycle Damage Claim - Insurance company insistence on using approved supplier/repairer

nickmd

Jono111 said:

I didn't think insurance covered modifications and you would get the cost of the standard bike back minus wear.

If the liability is accepted then the insurer has an obligation to compensate the claimant for their losses subject to an approved valuation which will take into account specification, wear and tear and the cost of replacement. A motor insurance policy will confirm the make and model of the car and will have limitations on modifications. A cycle insurance policy will simply specify an upper limit to the level of cover. 

eddddy

nickmd said:

The defendants insurance company (AXA) is insisting that I send the bike to their approved repairer (Wheelies in Swansea) for their own examination and replacement. 

It might be reasonable for AXA to want their "specialists" to examine the bike, and compare it to the damage report.
For example, to make sure that:

• The parts you say are damaged really are damaged
• The damage is consistent with the accident (e.g. You're not claiming for parts that were damaged before or after the accident)
• etc

If this turns into a court case, and AXA say you refused to let them (or their "specialists") inspect the damaged bike, it might weaken your case significantly.

So perhaps tell AXA you are happy to allow their agents to inspect the bike, if they arrange collection and return at their expense and risk (unless you want to take the bike yourself) - but you don't agree to their agents repairing the bike.

eddddy

Jono111 said:

I didn't think insurance covered modifications and you would get the cost of the standard bike back minus wear.

Even if that were the case...

...as it stands, the OP isn't making an insurance claim.

Tho OP is making a claim against the 3rd party driver for negligence. (The driver's negligence resulted in damage to the OP's bike and injury to the OP). And the 3rd party driver is making an insurance claim. And the driver's insurance company is negotiating with the OP on behalf of the driver.

If the OP doesn't get a fair result from the negotiations, the OP can sue the 3rd party driver in court.

The OP would sue the 3rd party driver, not the insurance company. But the 3rd party driver would probably ask his insurance company to defend the claim in court on his behalf.

lisyloo

The problem is that the OP would want to use his legal insurance (presumably) rather than go DIY or pay a solicitor, after all that's what is for.

This isn't a course theyve suggested in fact they are being slow and pretty useless which is dissappointing.

Would be more straightforward if it came under the small claim court, but Im not sure it does.

nickmd

eddddy said:

It might be reasonable for AXA to want their "specialists" to examine the bike, and compare it to the damage report.
For example, to make sure that:

• The parts you say are damaged really are damaged
• The damage is consistent with the accident (e.g. You're not claiming for parts that were damaged before or after the accident)
• etc

If this turns into a court case, and AXA say you refused to let them (or their "specialists") inspect the damaged bike, it might weaken your case significantly.

So perhaps tell AXA you are happy to allow their agents to inspect the bike, if they arrange collection and return at their expense and risk (unless you want to take the bike yourself) - but you don't agree to their agents repairing the bike.

I've paid for a full assessment and report from a bike dealer who's familiar with the make and model and sent it to the insurer but they are insistent that they use their approved repairers. I have said that the bike is available at the dealer for an assessment by whoever they choose. They have declined and insist that I box it up and send it to their approved repairer. I have not declined an independent assessment it's just not at their site. They are refusing to send anyone. They will send me a box and will arrange for a courier to collect.

The bike is a highly specified time trial bike and won't fit in their box (I've discussed it with them) unless the front is fully disassembled which also a mess of carbon shards anyway. Aside from that bike handle bars are custom fitted by a specialist - which could not be replicated off the peg. The bike should be restored to it's pre-damaged state which requires specific expertise that their repairer doesn't have (I've confirmed that too).

Say you owned a Porsche and it was damaged and the insurance company elected to have it repaired by a Dacia dealer then you might not want that to happen. The insurer can recommend an approved repairer but they would not be able to compel you to use them. There maybe restrictions and limitations but the principle of being able to select a repairer of your choice would be upheld. This is part of current Consumer Law. The difficulty arises because I am not using my insurance policy in effect I don't have a contract so I am not protected by the law.

lisyloo

You are protected by consumer law and but you are not protected by contract law.
your solicitors should be doing this, so you have a choice of pursuing your solicitors or pursuing axa.
Have you considered upping the anti by talking about a hire bike?
in car insurance, 3rd party insurer fall over themselves to get things sorted as they don’t want increasing hire costs.
if they’d know about a hire bike for the last 6 months then they might have got a move on.
i would notify them of consumer law quoting specifics and your intention to hire a replacement (quote would be good) if they don’t get it settled by x date.

eddddy

nickmd said:

I've paid for a full assessment and report from a bike dealer who's familiar with the make and model and sent it to the insurer but they are insistent that they use their approved repairers. I have said that the bike is available at the dealer for an assessment by whoever they choose.

(I'm not sure that you actually read my reply, but anyway...) 

OK - so if you feel you've made all reasonable efforts to resolve this, the next stage would be suing the driver that crashed into you. (i.e. Making a court claim against the driver)

Remember that your claim is against the driver, your claim is not against AXA.

But since the driver is claiming on his AXA insurance, he would probably pass details on to AXA. And AXA would decide whether to pay-up or fight it in court.

(But it sounds like you are making a separate claim against the driver for personal injury. TBH, I would have thought it sensible to combine the bike damage and personal injury into a single claim. What does your solicitor say about this?) 

nickmd

eddddy said:

(I'm not sure that you actually read my reply, but anyway...) 

Sorry if I gave that impression - I did read your reply and I am grateful for the advice.    Hopefully I can persuade the insurers to see sense and everyone arrives at agreeable outcome and avoid pointless ligation and delay. TBH the solicitors have been poor on this. No guidance advice or recommendation. Silence, delay. I've taken it up with Cycling UK and their management. A LBS told me that a customer of there's had a similar experience where they were pushed down the approved repairer route who then in turn called the LBS and asked them to supply the bike via the repairer at trade price. Not great. 

Aretnap

lisyloo said:

You are protected by consumer law and but you are not protected by contract law.

This isn't correct - you have not bought a product from AXA, so you are not a consumer and consumer law is irrelevant. Your rights in this situation come entirely from tort law.

Fortunately tort law would seem to be on your side. The at fault driver has committed the tort of negligence, and the remedy you are entitled to from him (and therefore from his insurer) is not actually having your bike repaired - it's a sum of money to reflect the loss in value that your property has suffered as a result of his negligence (plus any additional reasonable expenses you have incurred). In other words - you are owed the difference between what your bike was worth five minutes before the accident, and what it was worth 5 minutes after the accident.

The repairs only come into it at all because in most cases the repair cost is a good measure of the drop in value. A £10000 bike that needs £2000 of repairs to get it into as new condition is probably worth... about £8000. I believe the most important recent case law is Coles v Hetherton in which the court of appeal confirmed that the damages should be measured as the reasonable cost of repair.

"Reasonable" in this context doesn't mean "cheapest possible", it means reasonable. A good test of whether the costs are reasonable is probably whether you'd pay them if you were paying for the repairs yourself. If you have a £10K professional or near-professional spec bike then it sounds fairly reasonable to me to use a specialist repairer rather than send it to any old bike shop. (OTOH if you wanted to have your £400 pub bike repaired by the same repairer, you might struggle to justify that as reasonable).

So provided you can justify your choice of repairer as a reasonable one, the third party insurer should cover the repair bill. Note that it seems that it doesn't necessarily matter what you actually pay. If (say) £2000 is the reasonable repair cost then you would be entitled to £2000, even if you actually get a discount because the mechanic is a friend, or if you bodge it up yourself with gaffer tape and parts that fell off the back of a lorry.

Of course, speak to your solicitor but if you read up on Coles v Hetherton it should give you an idea of the right questions to ask. (That case did involve cars, however there isn't a special set of laws which applies to damage to cars - the same principles apply to damage to any other type of physical property).

nickmd said:

Another alternative is to make a claim on my own insurance and seek redress that way and most likely incur higher premiums in the future, although I'm not clear as if that would be the case given there's a third party involved.

Do specialist cycle insurers even ask about previous accidents and claims? From trying the quotes process at a couple at random the answer seems to be "no", although I may not be looking at the same ones as you. So claiming through your own insurance might well have no impact on your future premiums - that's certainly an avenue worth investigating as well.