Insurance question...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby trailgumby » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:50 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: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.

Colin, that's an extenuating circumstance.

As always, these things are decided on both the law and the facts. Prima facie you are at fault if you rear end a vehicle as you are assumed not to have been keeping an adequate braking distance or not paying attention and it is the responsibility of the following driver to do those things. However, if you were keeping an adequate braking distance for the known conditions and something unforeseeable such as grease on the road causes you to crash, that is an "out". You were not negligent.

If being cut off, and the act of being cut off directly causes you to collide with the car doing the cutting off, or prevents you avoiding the collision, that is another out.

However, hitting the back of the car that has been cut off is generally not, unless he cuts into your lane while trying to evade the collision and that causes you to hit him. However, if he is simply braking suddenly for whatever reason (eg, avoiding running over a cat or a child or another car) and you hit him from behind, that is not an "out" for you. He has not broken a rule to cause you to hit him.

In the situation of the OP, in the absence of any such extenuating facts provided, he would normally be regarded as at fault.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

by BNA » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:20 pm

BNA
 

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:20 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Doesn't explain why the insurer gave me a no-fault on it.


Who knows?

Look, Colin, there are firms that let you keep your Rating One for life.

The principle is to stop churning ... they're already paying out, they may as well do what they can to get their money back by retaining customers. If they were able to control costs by also happening to be the other party's insurer, it's even sweeter for them.

As for your legal opinion about fault, it is not shared by this law firm for instance. Check "Rear-Ended".

http://www.marshallgibson.com.au/blog/working-fault-car-accident/

Police will steer clear of car collision damage, at least here in Victoria. You're unlikely to see a cop at an accident unless someone's been hurt or there's a hazard to traffic.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Carrots » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:44 pm

Depending how long you've had a full no claim bonus you can earn one at fault protection to your NCB. Ie if you have a one claim in a year whilst on an earned protected full no claim bonus you'll not drop back a peg.
User avatar
Carrots
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:34 am

For the record I have not mentioned or referred to my no claim bonus at anyime. I have been referring to the individual assessments, accident by accident. Yes I had a "lifet time no claim protected bonus" but it was able to be revisited when I had to start from a clean slate after my daughter wrote off my car so my policy terminated and I had to go with a new one for a car a little later. It is at that time that the individual assessments became relevant to me and which I had no trouble getting. For the record I also had a couple that I was assessed as at fault.

I have never said that rear ending does not factor into assessment of fault and do not now. Onlythat it is NOT a given and that, other than my case, I am aware of some that were not deemed to be fault of the following driver at all. That is the issue I seek to clarify - that is NOT black and white to insurers, courts or police. I don't need or want to challenge every case that rear ending HAS been deemed to be the trailing driver at fault. If anyone expects me to address those as though I believed that then I suggest that that is a paper tiger - an position that I have not put nor hold to.

Each rear ender should be assessed on it's merits, not some blind certainty. Posters see this in so many situations which I often challenge.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:53 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
Each rear ender should be assessed on it's merits, not some blind certainty.


All cases are on merit, that's why there's a judge.

But insurers know it's almost never worth going to a court if their customer rear ends someone or turns into someone who was driving legally in a straight line.

They suck it up and start doing all the paperwork. :smile:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby backofthebunch » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:49 pm

AndyRevill wrote: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

this is usually the case
backofthebunch
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby briztoon » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

backofthebunch wrote:
AndyRevill wrote: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

this is usually the case


A good reason to be a member of you State cycling body.

Member Insurance - Bicycle Queensland.

http://www.bq.org.au/join/insurance/
Image
briztoon
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:15 am
Location: Belmont, Brisbane

Re: Insurance question...

Postby atmurray » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:07 am

AndyTG wrote: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'.


I'd be careful, the latest CommInsure PDS includes the following exclusion:
What is not covered ... the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle ...

and it looks like you're right re 'don't admit it':
Additionally, you are not covered under this Insured Event: ... if you admit liability ...
atmurray
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby atmurray » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:29 am

argh, it looks like "mechanically propelled vehicle" might be a legal definition that might exclude self propelled vehicles:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10. ... 0105356515
A motor vehicle driven by petrol, oil, steam, or electricity (s 185, Road Traffic Act 1988 or s 136, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). The term includes a locomotive.

probably a good idea to check this with your insurer
atmurray
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby kicker661 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:34 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: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.


In fact the Police in WA seldom take action against rear enders on the freeway during peak hour, even in dry conditions.[/quote]

If a cyclist damaged your vehicle and it was their fault, you would claim via your car insurance company. You would then sue the person for your deductible assuming they don't want to pay up.

If you had no insurance you would have to sue the person in civil court for all damages assuming they don't want to pay up. Yeah you could go this route regardless of whether you have insurance but if it's a few grand it'll be a headache.

As for Police, the charge is neg driving. Generally handed out when a vehicle is in a major accident and needs to be towed or someone carted away in an ambulance. If everyone is ok, best to deal with it yourselves as no fines handed out that way.
kicker661
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:24 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:16 am

kicker661 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote: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.


In fact the Police in WA seldom take action against rear enders on the freeway during peak hour, even in dry conditions.


Cut and paste can be a b1tch. :? You have attributed to me what LinzOC said.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby master6 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:23 pm

In view of the BNA review of Bicycle Insurance matters today, it is time to bump this thread back to life.
The BNA item does not adequately cover the legal liability cover included in household insurances. Smashing or losing your bike can be grim, but facing a legal liability of potentially millions of dollars is far more serious.
If we are to be treated to advice re insurance, this aspect should be included.
master6
 
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:53 pm

Fair enough, but with four months of work, hours chasing people on the phone and hundreds of emails for this one (free) article, I hope that some of the other parts were 'adequate' for you.
2015 BNA Cycling Kit Very Awesome and Coming Soon!
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9395
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Insurance question...

Postby master6 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:05 am

AUbicycles wrote:Fair enough, but with four months of work, hours chasing people on the phone and hundreds of emails for this one (free) article, I hope that some of the other parts were 'adequate' for you.


This is an unnecessarily nasty prickly response, unbecoming of a moderator.

I am involved in a couple of organisations run by voluntary labour, and some members regard me as notorious for defending against critics of the efforts of people working voluntarily. Let me know if you would like some references.

This morning I am off to the Mens Shed to repaint the kitchen cupboard doors that I painted with some high school students last Tuesday. The weather was too cold for spraying, and the job was not as good as we would usually achieve. Some people said "its good enough for the Shed". Other people criticised the job.
I did not spit the dummy like you AUb; on reflection I accepted that the job could be improved; improved it will be.

To be blunt, you are giving people advice, and I thank you for the effort, however, as this advice might lead people to spend their hardearned unnecessarily, I reckon that a further contribution is called for.

Dont worry yourself AUb, I will do the job for you.

Wipe your nose .
master6
 
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby master6 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:18 am

AUbicycles wrote:Fair enough, but with four months of work, hours chasing people on the phone and hundreds of emails for this one (free) article, I hope that some of the other parts were 'adequate' for you.


Decide whether it is "fair enough" as you say. No need for the "adequate" barb.

To any readers interested, google any insurance company, choose household insurance, then go to the "PDS" which gives you policy wordings. The following was lifted from the basic no frills policy at Allianz:-


"13. Legal liability – cover for injury to other people
or their property
(Applicable whether you have buildings and/or
contents cover)
We will cover your legal liability for payment of compensation
in respect of:
• death, bodily injury or illness, and/or
• physical loss of or damage to property,
occurring during the period of insurance which is caused by
an accident or series of accidents attributable to one source or
originating cause.
This cover applies in respect of an accident occurring:
• anywhere in Australia, or
• elsewhere in the world, when you are temporarily outside
Australia provided you normally reside in Australia.
The maximum amount we will pay under this policy is
$10,000,000 (Australian) arising out of any one accident or
series of accidents attributable to one source or originating
cause. This limit will be reduced by any amount paid under
any other buildings or contents policy you have with us
providing this type of cover for the same liability, loss,
occurrence or incident.
40
In addition we will also pay all legal costs and expenses you
incur with our consent for which you are legally liable plus
the cost of any lawyers we appoint.
What you are not covered for:
1. We will not cover your legal liability for:
a. damage to your property;
b. injury to any person who normally lives with you, or
damage to their property;
c. injury to your employees, or damage to their
property;
d. loss of or damage to property in your care, custody
or control except that property in which you live as a
residential tenant;
e. claims involving your business, trade or profession
(unless you are working on a part-time temporary
basis as a baby-sitter caring for children);
f. which you are liable because of the terms of an
agreement, other than a lease or rental agreement,
you have entered into (unless you would have been
liable if the agreement did not exist);
g. damage to any land or fixed property resulting
from vibration, the removal or weakening of or
interference with support to land, buildings or any
other property;
h. claims arising out of your ownership, possession or
use of any:
41
• aircraft or aerial device or aircraft landing area,
except a model aeroplane or toy kite, “aircraft
landing area” means any area in which aircraft
land, take off, are housed, maintained or operated.
• mechanically propelled vehicle, except garden
equipment, golf buggy or wheelchair which
do not need to be registered or do not require
statutory bodily injury cover to be taken out,
• watercraft except for surfboards, sailboards,
canoes and surf skis, and
• other non-motorised watercraft more than
3 metres in length;
i. claims involving buildings in the course of
construction or any alterations, additions, demolition,
repairs to or decorations of the buildings costing more
than $50,000;
j. claims arising directly or indirectly out of or in any
way connected with, the existence, at any time,
of asbestos;
k. claims arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release
or escape of pollutants defined as smoke, vapours,
soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids,
gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants
or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any
watercourse or body of water.
Except for accidents happening in Canada or the
United States of America, this exclusion will not
apply if such a discharge, dispersal, release or escape
is caused by sudden accidental unexpected and
unintended happening. We will not pay expenses for
the prevention of such contamination or pollution;
42
l. claims for:
• pregnancy, or
• the transmission of disease;
m. claims which arise out of your ownership or
possession of any building except for your buildings
located at the risk address shown in the current
schedule; or
n. claims arising directly or indirectly from or in any
way connected with, the existence, use, operation
or maintenance, at any time, of electronic mail, a
computer virus, an internet site or other internet
based service, intranet or any web site.
2. We will not:
a. cover your legal liability arising out of breach of
copyright or an act of libel, slander or assault caused
by you;
b. cover you for any legal liability arising
from any:
• statutory, compulsory scheme or fund,
• accident compensation scheme or workers
compensation policy of insurance, or
• industrial award, even if the amount recoverable
is nil,
c. cover you for any legal liability which is over that
recoverable under any:
• statutory compulsory scheme or fund, or
• accident compensation scheme or workers
compensation policy of insurance, or
• industrial award; or
d. pay for any aggravated, exemplary or punitive
damages, fines or penalties.
43
Special conditions applying to legal liability:
1. If you own the buildings but have only insured your
contents under this policy, we will not cover any legal
liability you may incur as owner of the buildings. This
condition does not apply if the buildings are defined as a
lot and your contents are insured by this policy.
2. If you own the buildings and have only insured your
buildings under this policy we will only cover any legal
liability you may incur as owner of the buildings.
3. If you own the buildings, but do not live in them, we will
not consider your ownership to be a business.
4. This legal liability cover will be governed by the law of
the State or Territory where this policy was arranged and
whose courts will have jurisdiction in any dispute.
No excess applies to this benefit."
master6
 
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby human909 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:31 am

Insurance should be for covered life's rare and extreme events. Otherwise self insurance is more economical. When it comes to theft/crashes it seems the going rate assumes total bike destruction every 4-5 years.... This event seems to be neither rare nor extreme so bike insurance doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense unless you are wrecking bikes extremely regularly.

Third party insurance however does make a little sense as the potential costs are much higher. But this applies to all of life, an home insurance should provide adequate cover.
human909
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby cyclotaur » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:05 am

The step before insurance is risk assessment. Get this right, consider your ability to self-insure (vs. cost of premiums) and many people would find various specialist insurances unnecessary. This is especially true IMO when already covered (as mentioned above) by home-owner insurance.





Sent from my iPhinger ...
Here's my blog - A bit of fun :)
"Riding not racing...."
User avatar
cyclotaur
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby AUbicycles » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:16 am

I defend my right to be annoyed by the tone of your comment.
While the suggestion is a valid and worthy addition, taking a positive approach in making the recommendation is much more effective.

The article does not constitute financial advice nor makes a recommendation.
2015 BNA Cycling Kit Very Awesome and Coming Soon!
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9395
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Insurance question...

Postby master6 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:26 pm

AUbicycles wrote:I defend my right to be annoyed by the tone of your comment.
While the suggestion is a valid and worthy addition, taking a positive approach in making the recommendation is much more effective.

The article does not constitute financial advice nor makes a recommendation.


I think that you should refer this subject to your other moderators for their unbiased assessment.
My approach was neither negative nor positive; I simply pointed out in a logical manner that a matter of importance to the discussion was overlooked, and my motive for pointing this out was a concern that people might be influenced incorrectly due to not having all relevant information.
I did not adversely criticise the material that you did present ; in fact I thought that it was pretty good.

I note that two posters since my initial comment yesterday have recognised the protection provided by household insurance.
master6
 
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby jules21 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:53 pm

human909 wrote:Insurance should be for covered life's rare and extreme events. Otherwise self insurance is more economical. When it comes to theft/crashes it seems the going rate assumes total bike destruction every 4-5 years.... This event seems to be neither rare nor extreme so bike insurance doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense unless you are wrecking bikes extremely regularly.

Third party insurance however does make a little sense as the potential costs are much higher. But this applies to all of life, an home insurance should provide adequate cover.

agree. but what some people are really buying is peace of mind. they just want to feel insured. they don't necessarily care that it doesn't pay out in the long run. i'm with you though, personally.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Carrots » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:02 pm

Third Party Liability

Let's step away from the childish banter for a moment and look at it in short -


It's pretty simple, any reputable home (and/or contents) policy will cover your third party liability with respect to riding your bike.

Each and every insurer is going to offer their liability slightly different whether it be a lower sum insured (ie $20m not $30m - hopefully not lesser) and depending on the quality of the product it may or may not have some exclusions in place that you'll need to be aware of.

I would always be cautious when it comes to some of the new "cheap" options now available on the market. Policies are usually cheap for a reason and that is because they're providing lesser cover (or are noticeably lower in risk - for home it's mostly the first of these).

If you have concerns about your policy - call your provider or broker. Ask them the question. Will I be covered if I hit a car whilst commuting? What happens if I lose control when racing and cause property damage - to another bike or a non race related object?

Be mindful there's no single answer when it comes to liability - the event that usually happens is the one no one ever thinks of!


Once again - check your policy. If in doubt ask questions. If need be shop around to be adequately covered. And even as someone's previously mentioned - work out what risk you're prepared to carry yourself. That could be in the form of not insuring, picking a lesser cover or taking a higher excess to reduce cost.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Carrots
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Insurance question...

Postby human909 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:14 pm

jules21 wrote:agree. but what some people are really buying is peace of mind. they just want to feel insured. they don't necessarily care that it doesn't pay out in the long run. i'm with you though, personally.


You are not wrong about the notion of buying peace of mind. Funeral insurance is proof of that!! What other insurance covers a certainty!
human909
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby citywomble » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:56 pm

Hello Master6,

This is an unnecessarily nasty prickly response, unbecoming of a moderator.


I have only noticed one nasty prickly respondee here, and it's not the moderator.

I personally think that the article was well written and provides food for thought for anyone with or considering insurance. It clearly is a prompt and no article or table will substitute for detailed reading of a policy and PDS in the light of you own specific and possibly unique needs.

A writer can never satisfy everyone and I suspect that the task is virtually unsurmountable with you. So what if you are a 'volunteer' and do it your way, don't try to impose your particular style on others. And don't tell other people what they should do with their own free time.

My vote and thanks for a great article goes to AUbicyles.
citywomble
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Robinho » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:21 pm

If I understand correctly, standard contents insurance will cover your 3rd party liability when you are riding your bike, in most cases. That being the case, why do most anti-cyclist rants about rego and CTP often insist that cyclists should have rego as they have no insurance? This is patently untrue, and I for one, will use the home insurance argument whenever I encounter such a comment.
Robinho
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby human909 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:31 pm

Robinho wrote:If I understand correctly, standard contents insurance will cover your 3rd party liability when you are riding your bike, in most cases. That being the case, why do most anti-cyclist rants about rego and CTP often insist that cyclists should have rego as they have no insurance? This is patently untrue, and I for one, will use the home insurance argument whenever I encounter such a comment.


Because such rants are idiots without a clue. They say anything to whinge about cyclists.
human909
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kev365428, TrikeTragic



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
> BNA Cycling Kit