Comprehensive vs TPFT, and what to do in case of no-fault collisions (motorbikes)

SouthLondonUser

I am about to renew a motorcycle insurance policy and wanted to ask a couple of questions on comprehensive vs third-party. Bear in mind that, unlike for cars, the difference in price can be significant, and I understand it’s much more common for motorcyclists than for car drivers to get TPFT only.

 

1. Is the only difference that, with comprehensive, I can claim for damage caused to my bike by myself or by someone unknown (e.g. a hit and run)?
   
   
2.  If the damage to my bike is caused by a motorist who has stopped and whose details I have, does having a comprehensive policy make much of a difference? Is the difference that my insurer would pay out more quickly than claiming through the other party’s insurer? But then would my insurance policy terminate immediately after the claim?
   
   
3.  What would I need to do if am involved in a no-fault collision (e.g. someone hits me)? I imagine most policies have wording forcing you to declare it, even if you’re claiming through the other insurer and not yours, right? Eg this was explained in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5969342/insurance-renewal-accident-but-no-claim   But what / how do you tell your insurer, if you’re not claiming?
   
   
4.  Does this mean that it is illegal to agree compensation with another motorist and then not to declare it to the insurers? E.g. “mate, I only need to replace the mirror, give me £100 and our insurers won’t know about it”
   
   
5.  Is someone hits me and it’s not my fault, will my premium change much if a) I have comprehensive and claim through my insurer vs b) I have TPFT, claim through the other party’s insurer, but I still need to declare the incident? Would the number of no claim years drop to zero in both cases or only in a) ?

 

Basically if the only difference is that comprehensive covers me for damages caused by myself or by someone I can’t identify, I’d probably continue to accept the risk and get a cheaper policy without comprehensive. 

Thank you!

SouthLondonUser

PS I suppose another difference is when the fault is truly shared between me and another party, or when maybe it's the other party's fault but it cannot be proven so insurers go for 50:50, would I be able to claim for only half the cost of repairing my bike? Whereas if I have comprehensive, then I can claim for all the costs (less excess)?

Car_54

SouthLondonUser said:

I am about to renew a motorcycle insurance policy and wanted to ask a couple of questions on comprehensive vs third-party. Bear in mind that, unlike for cars, the difference in price can be significant, and I understand it’s much more common for motorcyclists than for car drivers to get TPFT only.

 

1. Is the only difference that, with comprehensive, I can claim for damage caused to my bike by myself or by someone unknown (e.g. a hit and run)?
   
   
2.  If the damage to my bike is caused by a motorist who has stopped and whose details I have, does having a comprehensive policy make much of a difference? Is the difference that my insurer would pay out more quickly than claiming through the other party’s insurer? But then would my insurance policy terminate immediately after the claim?
   
   
3.  What would I need to do if am involved in a no-fault collision (e.g. someone hits me)? I imagine most policies have wording forcing you to declare it, even if you’re claiming through the other insurer and not yours, right? Eg this was explained in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5969342/insurance-renewal-accident-but-no-claim   But what / how do you tell your insurer, if you’re not claiming?
   
   
4.  Does this mean that it is illegal to agree compensation with another motorist and then not to declare it to the insurers? E.g. “mate, I only need to replace the mirror, give me £100 and our insurers won’t know about it”
   
   
5.  Is someone hits me and it’s not my fault, will my premium change much if a) I have comprehensive and claim through my insurer vs b) I have TPFT, claim through the other party’s insurer, but I still need to declare the incident? Would the number of no claim years drop to zero in both cases or only in a) ?

1. Yes.

2. Your own insurer should certainly start repairs quickly before sorting out liability, but on the other hand the TP insurer may be anxious to do likewise to keep costs down. Policy should only be terminated if the bike is written off.

3. Tell your insurer it's for info. only.

4. Yes. It's fraud by failing to disclose information, which is an imprisonable offence.

5. Premiums will most likely increase, but not by anything like what inflation is doing currently. NCB will only  drop for (a), but maybe not to zero: if you've got 3 years or more it will normally only drop partially.

DullGreyGuy

1. No, you simply can't claim for damages to your bike from your insurance unless its related to theft or fire... doesn't matter if there is another party nor if they are identified or not

2. Its more the case of where they are disputing liability or there are indemnity enquiries with their insurance etc... with comprehensive you can claim off your insurance, with TPFT you cannot. You can claim from their insurance no matter your insurance but they won't deal with you during disputes and you have no FOS rights as a third party claimant. There are also accident management companies to "help" you make a claim. Your policy doesn't automatically terminate after a claim. 

3. You must declare all incidents irrespective of blame or if a claim is made so level of insurance makes no difference here

4. Thats fraud if you then don't declare it

5. Impact would be comparable. NCD doesn't go to 0, if its a claim where they get their money back (aka non-fault) then it has no impact, if you have a (part) fault claim then you drop to 3 years NCD or lose 2 years if you had 4 or less years before

SouthLondonUser said:

PS I suppose another difference is when the fault is truly shared between me and another party, or when maybe it's the other party's fault but it cannot be proven so insurers go for 50:50, would I be able to claim for only half the cost of repairing my bike? Whereas if I have comprehensive, then I can claim for all the costs (less excess)?

Less half the excess, you'd pay the full excess and then get 50% back from the third party insurer. 

In a TPFT situation you could still claim half your losses but a) would you be as good at arguing to get the 50/50 rather than it being your fault and b) you wouldn't be able to use accident management firms to help (unless you had a notable injury)

Aretnap

TPFT means that damage to your vehicle (unless caused by fire or theft) is simply not your insurer's problem - full stop. If you call your insurer up to report an accident they'll say something that amounts to "thank you for telling us, we'll let you know if we need any more information" and hang up. Unless your policy comes with motor legal protection you should not count on any help from your insurer when it comes to claiming from the other party. Their only duty is to wait and see if the third party claims against you - and either pay or defend the claim if one does materialise.

If you think that the accident was caused by another motorist then you can attempt to claim from his insurer - but his insurer might not agree with your assessment on fault. If they don't pay you then your only recourse is to take them to court and prove that the other driver was liable. Or at least partially liable - if the court finds that he's 50% to blame then you can claim half your repair costs etc.

As I said your insurance company won't have any obligation tyo help you with the court process unless you have legal cover, so you'd either have to argue your case yourself, or pay a lawyer yourself. And if the amount of damage was less than £10,000 you would not get the lawyer's fees back even if you won as the case would be heard in the small claims court. So if you do go down the TPFT route, adding legal protection is probably more important than if you have comprehensive cover.

SouthLondonUser

@aretnap Thank you. With legal cover, do they give me a budget and then I can choose the lawyer myself? Do they appoint one? Can I choose only from a panel approved by the insurer?

I have heard many stories of legal cover not being worth it because the insurer can assign you the cheapest, laziest lawyer out there.

@DullGreyGuy So if I have TPFT, a drunk driver hits me and it's not my fault, when I renew the policy my "no claim discount" remains unaffected, but there will be a separate question "have you ever been involved in a collision" and of course I'll have to answer yes to that. Is that how it works? Or does 'claim' refer to any claim, whether you made it through your insurer or through the other party's insurer?

@Car_54 when you say that premiums will probably increase but not by much, are you referring to your experience with cars, or specifically with motorcycles? Pricing for the two can work quite differently

SouthLondonUser

PS I remember reading about it in some magazine, then found the link. This guy is a lawyer who does lots of motorcycle cases, and that's his explanation of why legal cover isn't worth it.

https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbike-blog/2010/07/legal-expenses-insurance-policy/

It sounds plausible, but:

• of course he would say that and not the opposite
• I have no idea if he's a serious person or an ambulance chaser
• at the same time, the fact he has a vested interest in rubbishing legal cover doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong

Aretnap

SouthLondonUser said:

@aretnap Thank you. With legal cover, do they give me a budget and then I can choose the lawyer myself? Do they appoint one? Can I choose only from a panel approved by the insurer?

I have heard many stories of legal cover not being worth it because the insurer can assign you the cheapest, laziest lawyer out there.

Depends what you expect from it. They will only cover you if they judge that you have a realistic (ie better than 50%) chance of winning - no insurer is going to cover you to pursue a claim out of sheer bloody-mindedness when the evidence is not on your side. And no you won't be able to choose a KC from a top London chambers to fight your corner over a broken motorbike.

On the other hand a cheap lazy solicitor is probably better than no solicitor at all, which is realistically what you will be getting for a low to medium value property damage claim without legal cover. A no win no fee form wouldn't touch a claim like that, and any money you paid a solicitor yourself would be gone irrevocably regardless of the final outcome.

SouthLondonUser

Is there a threshold for what needs to be reported to the insurer?

E.g. if a car door needs replacing, of course that must be reported.

But how about scratches and dents? If I walk back to my car or motorcycle and find a new scratch, should I in theory report that, too?

Surely it's not insurance fraud not to report a tiny scratch which it isn't even worth fixing?.

DullGreyGuy

SouthLondonUser said:

aretnap Thank you. With legal cover, do they give me a budget and then I can choose the lawyer myself? Do they appoint one? Can I choose only from a panel approved by the insurer?

I have heard many stories of legal cover not being worth it because the insurer can assign you the cheapest, laziest lawyer out there.

DullGreyGuy So if I have TPFT, a drunk driver hits me and it's not my fault, when I renew the policy my "no claim discount" remains unaffected, but there will be a separate question "have you ever been involved in a collision" and of course I'll have to answer yes to that. Is that how it works? Or does 'claim' refer to any claim, whether you made it through your insurer or through the other party's insurer?

You technically can choose your own lawyer but they must be willing to work to the rates and terms that the panel solicitors do, realistically the vast majority won't. Panel solicitors do because they get thousands of cases and so it's a volume play.

Drunk driver isn't the best example to use but yes, if you are not to blame and your insurers recover their outlay then the NCD won't be impacted. As you appear to be on the cusp of working out though NCD is just a percentage discount and is independent to what underlying premiums may be. So even if you had protected NCD and had a fault claim the premiums would still go up, just not as much as if you hadn't had proctected NCD