Insurance question...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Insurance question...

Postby AndyTG » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:40 pm

So communting home in the CBD, car cuts across, car in front of me breaks hard, I hit car. Slight scratch to car, bruises to me. Important thing is the bike's fine.

I'm assuming its technically my fault (although the git who cut in can take some moral blame), so no argument there.

Question on insurance though, and its more of a query around bike accidents in general. If you crash and cause damage to another person or property, does either your home, medical or car insurance cover it? I'm assuming not but thought I'd check.
AndyTG
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:56 pm

by BNA » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:43 pm

BNA
 

Re: Insurance question...

Postby bollo » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:43 pm

not sure if they can help but maybe contact these guys https://www.facebook.com/CyclistInsuran ... ion=stream maybe they can help
2013 Cube Lightning HPC SL Race
2012 Merida Scultura Evo 905
User avatar
bollo
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: St Clair

Re: Insurance question...

Postby human909 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm

Unless your insurance policies cover broader public liability then you are not covered. Home insurance often covers public liability on your property but not outside it.

Regular riders really should considered getting it. Bicycle Victoria Membership covers it. Though I am loath to give them my $$$ given their negative stance on many cycling advocacy issues.
human909
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby DoubleSpeeded » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:23 pm

hmm i am interested in knowing more about this also. It never even occurred to me until i read this thread.

since cyclist use the roads with registered vehicles.

but bicycles don't have registration and technically would be no different to a pedestrian accidentally breaking someones mirror or denting someones car whilst walking.
DoubleSpeeded
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:18 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:27 pm

DoubleSpeeded wrote:
but bicycles don't have registration and technically would be no different to a pedestrian accidentally breaking someones mirror or denting someones car whilst walking.


Well, they can be liable, too.

Probably not a great idea to raise that with them as their ambulance arrives, though. :smile:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby AndyTG » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:09 pm

Hmmm, been riding in the CBD for a few years now but given this and the general mileage I do anyway, probably time to get some...
AndyTG
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:56 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:56 pm

As Human909 points out, Bicycle Victoria insurance is a good option if you're a 'Mexican'. My wife and I have got the family membership.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Undertow » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:36 am

clackers wrote:As Human909 points out, Bicycle Victoria insurance is a good option if you're a 'Mexican'. My wife and I have got the family membership.


Why would someone from New South Wales join Bicycle Victoria?
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:41 pm

Undertow wrote:
Why would someone from New South Wales join Bicycle Victoria?


Other way round, Undertow. :smile:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:21 pm

AndyTG wrote:So communting home in the CBD, car cuts across, car in front of me breaks hard, I hit car. Slight scratch to car, bruises to me. Important thing is the bike's fine.

I'm assuming its technically my fault (although the git who cut in can take some moral blame), so no argument there.

Question on insurance though, and its more of a query around bike accidents in general. If you crash and cause damage to another person or property, does either your home, medical or car insurance cover it? I'm assuming not but thought I'd check.

The owners of each item of property is firstly repsonsible for repairs to their property. However, if the damage is caused by an other party whose negligence contributed to the damage then a propety owner may be able to make a claim against the negligent party.

I am assuming that the situation you described is car A cut across in front of car B which ahad to brake hard. You hit Car B when it stopped unexpectedly and quickly. If you were not negligent then, insurance or not, the owner of car B has to suffer the loss unless he can get it from the woner of car A. And you are out of the picture.

Not everything that hapens on the road is caused by undue fault. In the popular vernacular, "S#&(AT) happens".
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby AndyRevill » Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:59 pm

Having recently been hit and replaced my bike (on their insurance) I also checked all this out. While My home insurance via RACT wouldnt cover my bike while being ridden it does cover me for broader third party liability if I cause damage/ hit someone so worth checking it out with whoever you're insured with.

Andy
Trek 1.7 dec.
Trek Domane 4.5
AndyRevill
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Margate, TAS

Re: Insurance question...

Postby trailgumby » Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:17 pm

The wording of my CommInsure home and contents cover includes broader public liability up to $20mil so long as I am not driving a motor vehicle. I will therefore not be renewing my bicycle SA cover next year as the PL cover is redundant and the payout for other events is pretty poor - albeit no worse than the other States and better than some (eg Bicycle Victoria).

Disclosure: I work for a related company.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Insurance question...

Postby AndyTG » Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:18 pm

ColinOldnCranky - interesting (and potentially cash saving) point.

trailgumby - I'm with Comminsure and lo and behold - "If you have purchased contents cover, you are covered for up to $20 million for damages, legal fees and disbursements, costs and expenses that you are legally liable to pay another person/s as a result of an incident that occurs outside your insured address but within Australia that causes:
• the death or bodily injury of someone other than you ; or
• physical loss of or damage to the property of someone other than you or your family member."

According to a guy I work with with an insurance background, the trick is around 'legally liable' i.e. 'don't admit it, be found it'.
AndyTG
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:56 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Carrots » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:49 pm

The majority of reputable home insurance covers will pick up your liability for such an example if you're at fault, but it's not a hard and fast rule however and it isn't such a bad thing to be double up by having a Bicycle Vic/SA/NSW/QLD/whoever cover in place also.

I would have said if you've hit someone in the rear/from behind that with the way road rules work you'd be portioned the majority blame.
User avatar
Carrots
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Xplora » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:21 pm

I have Budget Direct home insurance and it covered a substantial damages claim after I collided with a car last year. The idea was actually floated by the driver's insurance company, and thank goodness they mentioned it, because we didn't assume it would cover it.

The key is that you get a recorded confirmation of your coverage when taking out the policy. You really need them to say "yes we will cover you for XYZ, assuming you are not violating ABC exclusions" and confirm the exclusions. That recording is your golden ticket. If they can't say yes or no, then do not take the policy and move on. VeloSure covers bikes both on and off the race track, and will be my main insurer once I get a licence. I have bad luck with bikes. :lol:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6604
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Insurance question...

Postby LinzOC » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:22 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
AndyTG wrote:So communting home in the CBD, car cuts across, car in front of me breaks hard, I hit car. Slight scratch to car, bruises to me. Important thing is the bike's fine.

I'm assuming its technically my fault (although the git who cut in can take some moral blame), so no argument there.

Question on insurance though, and its more of a query around bike accidents in general. If you crash and cause damage to another person or property, does either your home, medical or car insurance cover it? I'm assuming not but thought I'd check.

The owners of each item of property is firstly repsonsible for repairs to their property. However, if the damage is caused by an other party whose negligence contributed to the damage then a propety owner may be able to make a claim against the negligent party.

I am assuming that the situation you described is car A cut across in front of car B which ahad to brake hard. You hit Car B when it stopped unexpectedly and quickly. If you were not negligent then, insurance or not, the owner of car B has to suffer the loss unless he can get it from the woner of car A. And you are out of the picture.

Not everything that hapens on the road is caused by undue fault. In the popular vernacular, "S#&(AT) happens".


That's not correct; you rear end someone it is your fault unless you were rear ended yourself. The only way to rear end someone is to be travelling too close - hence the automatic appropriation of fault. I've been car B on two occassions; the first drove me into car A. On this occassion insurance found against me until the police report highlighted car C hitting me first; the other occasion insurance paid out fully.

If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.
LinzOC
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby human909 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:07 am

LinzOC wrote:That's not correct; you rear end someone it is your fault unless you were rear ended yourself. The only way to rear end someone is to be travelling too close - hence the automatic appropriation of fault. I've been car B on two occassions; the first drove me into car A. On this occassion insurance found against me until the police report highlighted car C hitting me first; the other occasion insurance paid out fully.

If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.

"Bikes = cars"????? Thats a new one.

ColinOldnCranky is far closer to the truth than you are. ColinOldnCranky was referring to the tort of negligence. That is the law that is relevant. What insurance companies think and what occurred in your anecdote have alot less relevance.
human909
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:49 pm

LinzOC wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:
AndyTG wrote:So communting home in the CBD, car cuts across, car in front of me breaks hard, I hit car. Slight scratch to car, bruises to me. Important thing is the bike's fine.

I'm assuming its technically my fault (although the git who cut in can take some moral blame), so no argument there.

Question on insurance though, and its more of a query around bike accidents in general. If you crash and cause damage to another person or property, does either your home, medical or car insurance cover it? I'm assuming not but thought I'd check.

The owners of each item of property is firstly repsonsible for repairs to their property. However, if the damage is caused by an other party whose negligence contributed to the damage then a propety owner may be able to make a claim against the negligent party.

I am assuming that the situation you described is car A cut across in front of car B which ahad to brake hard. You hit Car B when it stopped unexpectedly and quickly. If you were not negligent then, insurance or not, the owner of car B has to suffer the loss unless he can get it from the woner of car A. And you are out of the picture.

Not everything that hapens on the road is caused by undue fault. In the popular vernacular, "S#&(AT) happens".


That's not correct; you rear end someone it is your fault unless you were rear ended yourself. The only way to rear end someone is to be travelling too close - hence the automatic appropriation of fault. I've been car B on two occassions; the first drove me into car A. On this occassion insurance found against me until the police report highlighted car C hitting me first; the other occasion insurance paid out fully.

If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.


Notwithstanding your particular incident, it not at all so absolute as you state.

In fact the Police in WA seldom take action against rear enders on the freeway during peak hour, even in dry conditions. I remember the mathematics of it twenty years ago (numbers of lanes and traffic throughput) meant that the distances recommended could not be met during those times. It would be far worse in that regard now than then in Perth.

It is possible to rear end someone without being negligent. The only way to guard absolutely against accidents like that are to never drive. I had no fault attributed to me when I rear ended a person by my insurance company and the police did not level any charges despite substantial damage. I was also a witness (uncalled) for an appeal where the driver of a car that ran into the rear of a stationary car on a highway had been found guilty in his absence. The magistrate summed it up something like "The fact of an accident, even one such as this, is not proof of dangerous driving and the prosecutor has relied only on that fact. Appeal granted." The driver represented himself, no flash suited lawyers complicating matters.

The insurance company is there only to help you pay for a successful tort action against you. The usual tort is one of negligence. The OPs post does not scream out negligence to me and would require more than him striking the car in the case he describes.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:45 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: I had no fault attributed to me when I rear ended a person by my insurance company


Sure, Colin, but your company ended up paying the bill, right?
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby LinzOC » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:49 pm

human909 wrote:
LinzOC wrote:That's not correct; you rear end someone it is your fault unless you were rear ended yourself. The only way to rear end someone is to be travelling too close - hence the automatic appropriation of fault. I've been car B on two occassions; the first drove me into car A. On this occassion insurance found against me until the police report highlighted car C hitting me first; the other occasion insurance paid out fully.

If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.

"Bikes = cars"????? Thats a new one.

ColinOldnCranky is far closer to the truth than you are. ColinOldnCranky was referring to the tort of negligence. That is the law that is relevant. What insurance companies think and what occurred in your anecdote have alot less relevance.


The predominate view on this forum is that bikes = cars on the road - something that I agree with. We take the lane, stop at red lights, give way etc. If you rear end a car you are at fault. I've never lived in WA but my experiences in and knowledge of ACT, NSW, NT and QLD indicate that if you rear end someone in a vehicle you are automatically at fault unless you can prove otherwise. If you fail to leave enough room to stop then you are at fault.
LinzOC
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:32 am

clackers wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote: I had no fault attributed to me when I rear ended a person by my insurance company


Sure, Colin, but your company ended up paying the bill, right?

Which is what insurance companies do. If a storm damages my roof then, assuming there is no-one else liable, then I pay to fix it (or my insurance company if I am insured). What is your point?
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:09 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
clackers wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote: I had no fault attributed to me when I rear ended a person by my insurance company


Sure, Colin, but your company ended up paying the bill, right?

Which is what insurance companies do. If a storm damages my roof then, assuming there is no-one else liable, then I pay to fix it (or my insurance company if I am insured). What is your point?


My point is, you were responsible, and by law would have had to personally pay for the damage you did if you had no covering policy.

The other party's insurance company didn't pay for the repairs.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:41 pm

clackers wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:
clackers wrote:Sure, Colin, but your company ended up paying the bill, right?

Which is what insurance companies do. If a storm damages my roof then, assuming there is no-one else liable, then I pay to fix it (or my insurance company if I am insured). What is your point?


My point is, you were responsible, and by law would have had to personally pay for the damage you did if you had no covering policy.

The other party's insurance company didn't pay for the repairs.

"And by the law? That is not at all the law. Plain and simple. Statute law or common law. Nor a certaintly when deciding the outcome of tortious actions.


So, to be clear, my insurance company did NOT pay for his repairs, but they paid for mine. I assume the other guy was insured in which case his company paid his. My insurer recorded it as a no-fault accident, as I expect the other guys did for him too. The situation was a wet road with all parties doing the right thing but someone had dumped a bin of KFC refuse over the road in the early hours of the morning which a resident had then replaced in the bin. Tyres and all were fine. Speeds were fine. Your belief "point" that I was at fault was not the case. Even the other driver had no issue with our shared misfortune.

The other case I mentioned (the appeal) did not even require extraordinary situation, only a confluence of common circumstances.

Rear enders are not always a fault of the person running into the rear. There is nothing in the OPs post to say that he was doing anything wrong. $H1% happens. Moving on...
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:00 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
So, to be clear, my insurance company did NOT pay for his repairs, but they paid for mine.


My guess is that's not what happened.

Your company paid for your repairs, and his.

And if you had not been insured, his company would have come after you personally for the damages.

These are not charitable institutions.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:15 pm

clackers wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:
So, to be clear, my insurance company did NOT pay for his repairs, but they paid for mine.


My guess is that's not what happened.

Your company paid for your repairs, and his.

And if you had not been insured, they would have come after you personally for the damages.

These are not charitable institutions.

Doesn't explain why the insurer gave me a no-fault on it. You should be able to check with your own as to what claims were considered yours and what were not as they use that data later to decide if to continue insuring. And, in general, insurers do not make ex-gratia payments in WA these days and expect it to all average out. Though a few decades ago they did come to low-admin arrangements among themselves and penalised customers accordingly. (Legislation stopped that practice.)

In the cases I quoted there was no fault by either party even if some seem to think it is not possible to rear end someone without someone being at fault. The police, the insurers and the courts all think otherwise. And they acted (or not) accordingly in the cases I mentioned.

Anyway, I entered this thread in response to a comment by AndyRevill and I think any more is flogging a dead horse.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Next

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers