Bike Insurance

[awesme]

Do the payment with EFT or Cheque, make sure it matches the letter, otherwise they will say thats a fake letter... Think out the box, think in the line of what can we do/find to justify that we/insurance company don't have to pay...

G

[Falco]

 

Remember - problems generally arise at claims stage when people aren’t prepared to assist with providing the necessary documentation to their insurer.

Hope this helps,

The MiWay MTB Team

 

The way I see it, if "necessary documentation" means an original invoice (to determine value), then the insurer is out to screw you right from the start.

If I buy a 50k bike on special, or through a contact at a wholesaler, or from another cyclist, at a reduced price of say 25k, it does not mean that the bike is worth 25k.

The bike will be insured for 50k (retail replacement value), and the premium will be based on a 50k bike. If it is a total loss, the insurer must pay 50k, not 25k as stated on the original invoice. The fact that I obtained it below retail price has nothing to do with it's value.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Falco

[pauloc]

The way I see it, if "necessary documentation" means an original invoice (to determine value), then the insurer is out to screw you right from the start.

If I buy a 50k bike on special, or through a contact at a wholesaler, or from another cyclist, at a reduced price of say 25k, it does not mean that the bike is worth 25k.

The bike will be insured for 50k (retail replacement value), and the premium will be based on a 50k bike. If it is a total loss, the insurer must pay 50k, not 25k as stated on the original invoice. The fact that I obtained it below retail price has nothing to do with it's value.

Well that's exactly it. You need to insure it for the full replacement value, not what you paid for it. Take for example my Canon EOS 350D digital camera. Can't get one of those anymore so I've set the replacement value at the value of a EOS 600D, which is much more than what my current camera is worth and more than what I originally paid for it as well.

 

If however you choose to under-insure because you won't necessarily replace with the same item, then that's your call and you only get paid out the specified replacement value. My bike comes to of 36k when I add all the bits and pieces up individually, but if I had to lose it, I'd probably be able to find an equivalent replacement for 25k, so I've chosen to insure it for only 30k.

 

Still going to call my insurance company today and ask all these questions to make sure there's no funny fine print.

[Caerus]

Well that's exactly it. You need to insure it for the full replacement value, not what you paid for it. Take for example my Canon EOS 350D digital camera. Can't get one of those anymore so I've set the replacement value at the value of a EOS 600D, which is much more than what my current camera is worth and more than what I originally paid for it as well.

 

If however you choose to under-insure because you won't necessarily replace with the same item, then that's your call and you only get paid out the specified replacement value. My bike comes to of 36k when I add all the bits and pieces up individually, but if I had to lose it, I'd probably be able to find an equivalent replacement for 25k, so I've chosen to insure it for only 30k.

 

Still going to call my insurance company today and ask all these questions to make sure there's no funny fine print.

 

As the person from Miway said, best to call your own insurance compnaies and sift through the grey areas to get a better idea.

[Caerus]

I would love to hear the end of the story(claim) between Miway and the "possible" fake frame.

[Grebel]

My Scott Addict is insured with Outsurance on their Out and About policy which covers me for racing, training etc.

 

I bought this frame as new from a fellow hubber who got it as a warranty replacement he received from Scott SA.

 

How am I supposed to show proof of payment come claim time?

 

It's not about proof of payment. The insurance company needs proof of ownership (That is where the proof of payment comes in as this shows proof of ownership). It is up to you to state the replacement value. If you can prove that you owned it, they will pay you out what you insured it for regardless of what it is. (bike, camera etc.)

 

If they think that there is something fishy going on, that is when the delays and additional documentation comes in.

[Falco]

It's not about proof of payment. The insurance company needs proof of ownership (That is where the proof of payment comes in as this shows proof of ownership). It is up to you to state the replacement value. If you can prove that you owned it, they will pay you out what you insured it for regardless of what it is. (bike, camera etc.)

 

If they think that there is something fishy going on, that is when the delays and additional documentation comes in.

 

This is the problem. If you buy a new car, insure it over the phone and all is A-OK. No proof necessary, the dealer provides proof. If you try to insure a second hand car, cover will be provided subject to a physical inspection of the vehicle being done, within a certain time, at an approved dealer / workshop. In so doing, you prove ownership and condition.

Now insure a bike ~ they ask type and amount you want to insure for, that's it.

Why do they not insist that the bike be taken to a dealer for ownership and value verification? I don't think any reasonable person wanting to take out bike insurance, and not have hassles at claim time, would object to this.

The Pinarello issue above could have been dealt with in this way. Fake frame? The appointed dealer or distributor would have picked it up if an inspection was done.

On the flip side though, if someone puts in a false claim, the insurer should nail them to the wall. Every false claim = higher premiums for the rest of us.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Falco

[pauloc]

I've called my insurance company and they've said that it's best to get some sort of letter from the original seller to confirm that they sold the bike to me. I've also printed out a copy of the EFT receipt and I've saved the original hub thread. I've also taken plenty of pics of the bike, so there shouldn't be any hassles with proving ownership should I need to claim.

 

As an interesting side note, I've been building my bike up over time so I'm going to go home tonight and collate all my invoices from CRC, CWC, etc and keep everything in one file. That way, if there's ever any doubt about any a claim for any component I'll have all the proof I need. Also going to jot down serial numbers where possible

 

W.r.t. to the replacement value, apparently it's up to me what I but if I do need to replace the bike. They'll either pay towards an exact replacement (but I'll need to cover the difference between the insured value and replacement value) or they'll give me the replacement value in cash to purchase whatever I want.

 

Happy days.

[Grebel]

This is the problem. If you buy a new car, insure it over the phone and all is A-OK. No proof necessary, the dealer provides proof. If you try to insure a second hand car, cover will be provided subject to a physical inspection of the vehicle being done, within a certain time, at an approved dealer / workshop. In so doing, you prove ownership and condition.

Now insure a bike ~ they ask type and amount you want to insure for, that's it.

Why do they not insist that the bike be taken to a dealer for ownership and value verification? I don't think any reasonable person wanting to take out bike insurance, and not have hassles at claim time, would object to this.

The Pinarello issue above could have been dealt with in this way. Fake frame? The appointed dealer or distributor would have picked it up if an inspection was done.

On the flip side though, if someone puts in a false claim, the insurer should nail them to the wall. Every false claim = higher premiums for the rest of us.

 

There is a difference between insuring a vehicle and a specified all risk item in the case of a bicycle or some other item of personal property. If you insure your second hand Canon 7D Camera with all it's extras for R35k, does the insurer ask you to get it inspected by an approved dealer? No. The responsibility lies with you to prove ownership. You can do this after it gets nicked or you can provide it to the insurer as soon as you put it on the policy. This can be done with a traceable serial number, an empty box, a picture or anything that can prove that you owned it. What you choose to insure it for is up to you.

 

If it looks like a false claim then the insurer has every right to dig deeper an if you get caught, I agree that you shouyld pay the price because we are paying the price at the moment with premium hikes that are subsidising the @aaholes that are submitting false claims!

 

I personally have no problem with an inspection centre for all second hand goods that are insured. In fact, I think it is a great idea. Managing it however would be a nughtmare...

[pauloc]

There is a difference between insuring a vehicle and a specified all risk item in the case of a bicycle or some other item of personal property. If you insure your second hand Canon 7D Camera with all it's extras for R35k, does the insurer ask you to get it inspected by an approved dealer? No. The responsibility lies with you to prove ownership. You can do this after it gets nicked or you can provide it to the insurer as soon as you put it on the policy. This can be done with a traceable serial number, an empty box, a picture or anything that can prove that you owned it. What you choose to insure it for is up to you.

I don't think it's fair that they'll agree to cover an item that they may not actually pay you out for. All verification checks should be enforced at the time of adding the item to your policy, otherwise it's like taking candy from a baby.

 

I often toss out old receipts so some of my specified all-risks items may now be 'dubious' in the eyes of the insurance company. I normally try supply invoices at the time of adding to the policy, but if they misplace their copy and I can't find mine then I'm stuffed.

[Caerus]

It all seems a bit backwards. In the UK, I had to prove ownership & my car had to have an MOT - Not that I paid for it. This all had to be supplied before they would give you insurance on any vehicle, here just phone up and give verbal details.

 

You pay fees only to possibly find that they might not even pay you out - Surely the onus is on the Insurance companies to explain all the fine print in laymens terms.

[Grebel]

I don't think it's fair that they'll agree to cover an item that they may not actually pay you out for. All verification checks should be enforced at the time of adding the item to your policy, otherwise it's like taking candy from a baby.

 

I often toss out old receipts so some of my specified all-risks items may now be 'dubious' in the eyes of the insurance company. I normally try supply invoices at the time of adding to the policy, but if they misplace their copy and I can't find mine then I'm stuffed.

 

That is an issue that you need to take up with your insurer.

 

I recently had a bike stolen and the claims process was virtually effortless. I had specified the make and model of the bike, sent them a quote from a dealer for replacement cost and gave the insurer the serial number on the frame at the time of adding it to my policy some three years before. On submission of the claim, I was aked for proof of ownership. I had no receipt as I had purchased it second hand some time back, but I did have a photo which I sent them. Claim was settled within two weeks for the amount insured less my excess.

 

I have sent the details of the replacement bike through to them as well as the details of all the accessories and I would expect the same service should this bike be damaged or stolen.

 

It all depends on the admin you do in the beginning as to how painless your claims experience is. Trust me, do the admin earlyas it saves a LOT of hassle later on!

[Ratty]

"You can furnish us with a valuation from your cycle dealer to confirm the condition and value of the bikes"

 

Above is the response I got when I asked what I would need to do when insuring my bikes (I don't have any proof of purchase).

 

Thanks for the input, I'm going to just insure my frames. My mtb I've got a warranty on, but I don't on my road bike at least that way it will be covered for damage.

[grb285]

I would love to hear the end of the story(claim) between Miway and the "possible" fake frame.

Me too, what's the outcome of that?

[grb285]

It all seems a bit backwards. In the UK, I had to prove ownership & my car had to have an MOT - Not that I paid for it. This all had to be supplied before they would give you insurance on any vehicle, here just phone up and give verbal details.

 

You pay fees only to possibly find that they might not even pay you out - Surely the onus is on the Insurance companies to explain all the fine print in laymens terms.

I think the insurance companies here like that little loophole. If 30% of their clients don't read the fine print, they pay out less. I'm wondering if the new CPA will have something there to protect the consumer from this unethical practise. I agree that in the UK they do it this way, and this is how it should be done. Why would they agree to insure something that they don't even know exists?

[Caerus]

Me too, what's the outcome of that?

 

 

Not sure, either way I think someone is gonna be out of pocket., or someone got ripped off big time. Just a strange story.

 

What I can't understand is what do the insurance companies do with the serial nos for a bike, no one will ever check that. I could just take photos of someone else frame and submit that.