Insurer will not pay for cycle - advice please

[Deleted User]

GipsyRacer said:

Thanks all for your input.  My expectation, which I think is reasonable, is that the insurer puts my son in the position he was before he was run over.  Given that his bike was just a year old, that means an equivalent new replacement.  Why should he (or I) waste time and money chasing around for a second-hand bike, which may turn out to be a dud?  (He uses his bike for some pretty extreme downhill racing).

Aretnap seems to be pretty clued up and is reading from the same script as the Churchill folks. Uncomfortable and maybe correct, but it doesn't make it morally right.

I wonder if it is worth pursuing the motorist?  He may have tried to discharge his liability through his insurer, but in my view this is not enough. And like I said, he is a scum bag.

I am not one for giving up on a matter of principle.

Basically, they owe you the amount it will cost you to buy a 1 year old bike of that spec. You can buy it from a reputable dealer who will warranty it, so you don't have to be worried about issues. If the exact same spec is not available, you could look at a lower spec plus some upgrades.

You need to find some examples of such bikes for sale and show them to Churchill. They will still want to pay less on the assumption that you will haggle the price down a bit.

You can't pursue the motorist, they will just pass anything to their insurer. You could take Churchill to Small Claims Court to recover the amount you think you should get, but you will have to argue your case and it won't be the full cost of a brand new bike.

It's a rubbish situation but it affects car drivers too. When the car is written off the pay-out is never enough to properly replace it, and the victim has to have all the hassle of finding and negotiating a deal on one. You can at least bill them for your time and any reasonable expenses like travel.

sheramber

You are told never to admit liability if you have an accident.  

 Saying sorry is admitting  liability.

[Deleted User]

sheramber said:

You are told never to admit liability if you have an accident.  

 Saying sorry is admitting  liability.

Saying sorry is not considered admitting liability. It's been tested in court.

[Deleted User]

Only question would be whether a PI claim is in place, and if not, why not? I am not suggesting committing fraud, if he is genuinely not injured, but having been hit twice on a bike, I would be amazed if he wasn't injured. I got carted off to A&E and was off work for 2 weeks and doctor could have signed me off for more, after a car pulled out on a roundabout into me, bike survived so didn't claim for that but the PI claim alone was over £2000 (yes riders get screwed by the system given what you'll get for a 20mph rear end shunt and exaggerating whiplash)

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Only question would be whether a PI claim is in place, and if not, why not? I am not suggesting committing fraud, if he is genuinely not injured, but having been hit twice on a bike, I would be amazed if he wasn't injured. I got carted off to A&E and was off work for 2 weeks and doctor could have signed me off for more, after a car pulled out on a roundabout into me, bike survived so didn't claim for that but the PI claim alone was over £2000 (yes riders get screwed by the system given what you'll get for a 20mph rear end shunt and exaggerating whiplash)

The bad news is that whiplash claims are severely limited now, and unlikely to cover actual costs.