Do you know what you are covered for / Cyclesure?

[Jigghead]

The intention is of this is to inform fellow cyclist of the exclusions that does exist!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As you all know my bike was stolen from my property more that 3 weeks ago.

I stay in a secure complex/estate with electric fence and 2 guards on duty all the time.

 

At the time my bike was inside my garden behind a locked gate.

 

After numerous phone calls and emails from my side I didnt receive the expected service or answers from cyclesure.

 

Eventually I asked my dad to phone as I felt I was getting no resolve.

 

Today I get informed that my claim was turned down.

 

Reason for their decision is that there was no forced entry.

 

I looked over my contract that i received when i joined cycle sure in 2009.

 

In easy english it says that you need to take all nessessary precausion to keep your belongings safe.

 

Now my claim was turned down as there was no signs of forced entry.

 

I then disputed this with them and then did some digging and found an email with policy amendments.

 

Now this is what I want to warn your hubbers about:

Bike jacking payouts are only paid out if it was violent.

It is the owners responsibility to try and recover the stolen goods.

Also if your bike gets stolen at any organised event like epic sani2c, joberg2c, advendurance events it has to be in a secure bike storage facility with access contols in place and approved locks that they have on their list.

 

This begs a lot of questions.

And if you read through their strict terms you almost get the impression that they are covering themselves to never payout.

 

So please go relook your contracts and see what you are really covered for.

 

Lastly, the ammendments they mailed was never

signed for or aknowledged by me.

After re-looking their contract, I feel that they charge a very high premium for very little coverage.

 

edit: Policy Document added

edit2: The intention is of this is to inform fellow cyclist of the exclusions that does exist!

 

I'm in the insurance industry and as far as I am aware, the onus is upon the insurer or broker to make sure you received and understood any amended terms and conditions. Failure to prove that these were received and explained could nullify them. However, I'm sure there may have been a clause that said the insured items must be locked away or secured in order to be covered.

 

All they try to do is ensure that the necessary precautions are taken to reduce the risk of a loss.

 

I'd take it further though, it's not as if you have anything to loose. I had a story where my brother's insurer repudiated a claim on a stolen car on the basis that it was stolen from outside his office when he'd stated on his application that it was parked underground, behind guarded, locked and access controlled gates.

 

After a lot of complaining etc. they ended up refunding him all premiums he'd paid since inception of the policy. This was before the introduction of the FAIS act which leans toward protecting the consumer more these days. I'd give it a punt and see what comes from it.

 

PM me if you need some advice or info.

 

J

[Rata Del Spruit]

So here's my proposal. We start a thread that basically acts similar to a petition, something along the lines of "Cyclists who refuse to use CycleSure". Everybody in solidarity with Carpet posts on there stating that they're either leaving CycleSure or won't use them in future. This can apply to Hollard too if people feel that way (our business insurance is now in the process of being switched and the broker has been notified why).

 

We then apply this vinyl to our studio windows on Gleneagles road, which sees hundreds of cyclists each week and thousands of drivers. Even if people don't follow the link, the idea that CycleSure is a dodgy option should be firmly planted. We could also make a domain like www.CycleSureSucks.co.za that points everyone to these threads and summarises the dissatisfaction with them. With a little bit of effort it should rank quite highly in a search.

 

Now to contact CycleSure and let them know what we're proposing. Also, keep up the pressure on Hollard's Facebook page and Twitter feed (someone posted the link to the twitter profile of the Hollard CEO but I can't find it.)

 

http://i.imgur.com/PP0qK6r.jpg

[I FLY]

I had one claim on Cyclesure a few years for damage incurred during a race. Claim was settled promtly.

 

However I did then read all the fine print about loss from my house or in transit and decided that the precuations I would have to prove were in place would mean my bikes, if stolen, would most likely not be covered.

 

So i decided the high premiums were a waste of money and I moved cover to my householders All Risk policy. My biggest fear is bikes falling off the bike rack in transit or being damaged by another car hitting them.

[awesme]

As I've mentioned to some before,

 

I was not happy how Cyclesure structures the excess,

 

They start small but quickly increase for every item, every thing that deviates from their base claim, implying you quickly end with a Huge potential excess.

 

As them for a copy of their claim/excess process,

 

Personally I'd rather pay R50/month more and have a flat excess than what cycle sure provides at a reduced premium.

 

G

[Joe Low]

I think it's great that the Hub is helping Carpet and it's a real shame that we get tripped up by insurance policies and the like.

 

Couple of things:

 

Nic Kohler of Hollard is a great guy, and if you get his attention and the case has merit, I dont doubt Carpet will get a good outcome;

 

"no forced entry" is a pretty common exclusion on policies for all kinds of theft, I'm surprised so many people are so outraged at this insurance company invoking it as a reason not to pay.

 

The Ombudsman is a credible route to take.

 

Good luck Carpet in coming right with this and hats off to Hubbers for their help.

 

[rouxtjie]

I think it's great that the Hub is helping Carpet and it's a real shame that we get tripped up by insurance policies and the like.

 

Couple of things:

 

Nic Kohler of Hollard is a great guy, and if you get his attention and the case has merit, I dont doubt Carpet will get a good outcome;

 

"no forced entry" is a pretty common exclusion on policies for all kinds of theft, I'm surprised so many people are so outraged at this insurance company invoking it as a reason not to pay.

 

The Ombudsman is a credible route to take.

 

Good luck Carpet in coming right with this and hats off to Hubbers for their help.

I am sure he is, we have an issue with TCF and his company's interpretation of it.

 

Maybe the better question is why are so many people surprised....don't you think it has something to do with managing expectations. Again TCF...they didn't do it.

[Rudi Pollard]

"no forced entry" is a pretty common exclusion on policies for all kinds of theft, I'm surprised so many people are so outraged at this insurance company invoking it as a reason not to pay.

 

I think the problem the people have here is when stuff gets stolen when you are actually at home. It is very easy for a robber to follow you into your yard when you arrive home. You quickly pop in to open the house and put your things down before you want to go out and say wash your bike after a ride, only to realise someone followed you in and took your bike.

 

Thus there would be no forced entry, and insurance wouldn't pay out...

[Spinnekop]

The perceived benefits of self insurance are far outweighed by potential third party liability. Yes, you could probably replace your bike in the event of accident or theft, but can you cover the damage to the brand new Porche or Merc you smashed into, or the medical expenses of the pedestrian you injured?

 

A side wing mirror alone would set you back 50k, respraying a few body panels a lot more. Ambulances and hospitals cost a fortune. What about consequential damages? The ripple effect of an accident goes well beyond just replacing a 15k 2012 Silverback. I urge caution when considering shouldering the burden of self insurance.

 

You sound like a true insurance salesman. Prying on the smell of fear. What if this. What if that. When that happens.

 

If the heavens fall we'll all have blue heads.

 

Not my cup of tea and an insurance guy coming to me with that crap will NEVER get my money. I don't like living in fear of what MIGHT happen. That is why actuaries get paid so much. They KNOW the odds of stuff like that happing is so little.....that is why insurance companies thrives and I am just a guy pulling a salary.

[Rudi Pollard]

If you can self insure for your bike I think it is a huge bonus. You can then take out only 3rd party insurance for all the other potential **** that may hit the fan... That will save you a lot of money!!!

[nathrix]

I just double checked my Outsurance "Special conditions" OUT and About Cover

 

Previous Insurer NONE

Has the risk owner ever had an insurance policy cancelled by an insurer? NO

OUT-AND-ABOUT incidents and claims in the last three years NONE

 

Special Conditions

THE REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE CONCEALING OF ITEMS INSIDE THE VEHICLE DOES

NOT APPLY TO BICYCLES. THERE MUST HOWEVER BE VISIBLE SIGNS THAT THERE WAS A

BREAK IN. BICYCLES LOCKED TO SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED ROOF- OR BICYCLE RACKS

WHEN TRANSPORTED WILL ALSO BE COVERED.

i asked for a list of approved locks/racks and said i have a Thule roof rack and they said it's good enough

ITEMS LEFT IN ANY VEHICLE ARE ONLY FULLY COVERED IF THEY ARE CONCEALED IN AN

ENCLOSED STORAGE AREA SUCH AS THE CUBBY HOLE, BOOT OR UNDER RETRACTABLE

OR REMOVABLE BOOT COVERS. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO BABY OR TODDLER SEATS.

ITEMS CONCEALED ON THE BACK OF AN LDV (BAKKIE) UNDER SPECIALLY DESIGNED

DURABLE LOCKABLE LOAD COVERS ARE ALSO FULLY COVERED. THE TOTAL CLAIM

PAYMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO R 10,000 FOR ITEMS CONCEALED UNDER CANVAS COVERS.

ITEMS CONCEALED IN THE LOADING AREA OF AN LDV (BAKKIE) WITH A CANOPY OF WHICH

ALL THE WINDOWS OF THE CANOPY HAVE "SMASH-AND-GRAB" SAFETY FILM OF AT LEAST

100 MICRON AND WITH VISIBILITY OF 35% OR LESS ARE ALSO FULLY COVERED. THE

TOTAL CLAIM PAYMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO R 10,000 IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

ARE LEFT IN THE LOADING AREA: CELL PHONES, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT, AUDIO/VIDEO

EQUIPMENT, PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WORTH MORE THAN R

100,000. THERE MUST BE VISIBLE SIGNS THAT THERE WAS A BREAK IN TO ENJOY FULL

COVER. THE TOTAL CLAIM PAYMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO R 10,000 FOR GOODS LEFT IN

THE OPEN.

 

They don't mention anything about hijackings or bike being damaged or stolen e.g. in a bike park at a stage race or event....

[Corvus]

You sound like a true insurance salesman. Prying on the smell of fear. What if this. What if that. When that happens.

 

If the heavens fall we'll all have blue heads.

 

Not my cup of tea and an insurance guy coming to me with that crap will NEVER get my money. I don't like living in fear of what MIGHT happen. That is why actuaries get paid so much. They KNOW the odds of stuff like that happing is so little.....that is why insurance companies thrives and I am just a guy pulling a salary.

 

Agreed, insurance companies on average always make more than they lose, which is why they're in the business in the first place. If insurance wasn't profitable, nobody would have an insurance company.

 

Not paying out on claims results in a 100% win on their side. They'll get your money without having to give you a cent, which is why they'll try their best at avoiding pay out.

 

Complete self-insurance isn't feasible, because the risk is too high to not have health-insurance, 3rd party car insurance and insurance on your house. But almost anything else can viably be self-insured if one is disciplined to save that money for a rainy day.

 

That's my opinion.

[Cruz Addict]

i feel huge sympathy and will be donating some ash towards carpets new ride as soon as i get paid but have had a thought regrading the insurance claim:

 

if the policy states that no forced entry = no claim why is it a surprise that they are not paying out, if you have the policy schedule surely you should have read the document to make sure you are covered as the document sets out stipulations to ensure you are covered and they are protected against an opportunist. the fact its writing in the small print section does not invalidate that they did tell you.

i think the insurance okes are all sharks and insurance is a grudge purchase. personally i make sure i read all documentation thoroughly and ask questions of them if i dont understand something.

from my side i would rather be safe than sorry.

 

as stated i think they are ****s but cant really see what more they could have done to ensure you are waware of the risks. if however you did have the bike locked up etc and there was forced entry and they still refussed to pay that would be a different story..

 

please dont think i support the guys at cyclysure( i remember a story a while ago where they stipulated a certain thickness cable lock must be used( hope it was them), anyway it was something stupid that cant be found, since then i stay away from any form of dedicated cycle insurance and cover my bike as part of my household policy for all risks).

 

Good luck Carpet i have loads of bike parts lying in wait, for builds i want to do someday so if you need let me know ill donate to the new bike cause gladly.

[rouxtjie]

Agreed, insurance companies on average always make more than they lose, which is why they're in the business in the first place. If insurance wasn't profitable, nobody would have an insurance company.

 

Not paying out on claims results in a 100% win on their side. They'll get your money without having to give you a cent, which is why they'll try their best at avoiding pay out.

 

Complete self-insurance isn't feasible, because the risk is too high to not have health-insurance, 3rd party car insurance and insurance on your house. But almost anything else can viably be self-insured if one is disciplined to save that money for a rainy day.

 

That my opinion.

I agree on this, if it doesn't affect my livelihood(car, house & content, health) I won't insure. If it does, I will go with the best, where best is determined on reputation of doing right by the customer when there is a claim(payouts)...not when they take the premiums(cheapest)

[rouxtjie]

i feel huge sympathy and will be donating some ash towards carpets new ride as soon as i get paid but have had a thought regrading the insurance claim:

 

if the policy states that no forced entry = no claim why is it a surprise that they are not paying out, if you have the policy schedule surely you should have read the document to make sure you are covered as the document sets out stipulations to ensure you are covered and they are protected against an opportunist. the fact its writing in the small print section does not invalidate that they did tell you.

i think the insurance okes are all sharks and insurance is a grudge purchase. personally i make sure i read all documentation thoroughly and ask questions of them if i dont understand something.

from my side i would rather be safe than sorry.

 

as stated i think they are ****s but cant really see what more they could have done to ensure you are waware of the risks. if however you did have the bike locked up etc and there was forced entry and they still refussed to pay that would be a different story..

 

please dont think i support the guys at cyclysure( i remember a story a while ago where they stipulated a certain thickness cable lock must be used( hope it was them), anyway it was something stupid that cant be found, since then i stay away from any form of dedicated cycle insurance and cover my bike as part of my household policy for all risks).

 

Good luck Carpet i have loads of bike parts lying in wait, for builds i want to do someday so if you need let me know ill donate to the new bike cause gladly.

One sentence...managing expectations through proper communication and acknowledgement or receipt. Would carpet have continued being their client if someone phoned her personally and explained every detail in the exclusions list, I don't think so....sending a mail out is simply not good enough.

 

Her expectations weren't met, and that is what she got sold

[Garfield2010]

There are T & C's for a reason. Imagine they pay out for every claim then the premiums would be unaffordable. The insurance industry is very competitive and regulated. Remember your premium is basically paying someone else's claim. Also it kind of forces you to be careful and not negligent.

 

Having said this insurance are supposed to be there for the "unforeseen". Friend of mines gardener forgot to lock the garage and his bike got stolen. No pay-out and I feel that was unforeseen from his point of view.

 

I also think the "forced entry" term should be relooked at.

 

Sometimes I think it would be better to pay R2,000 every month into a savings account.

[rouxtjie]

There are T & C's for a reason. Imagine they pay out for every claim then the premiums would be unaffordable. The insurance industry is very competitive and regulated. Remember your premium is basically paying someone else's claim. Also it kind of forces you to be careful and not negligent.

 

Having said this insurance are supposed to be there for the "unforeseen". Friend of mines gardener forgot to lock the garage and his bike got stolen. No pay-out and I feel that was unforeseen from his point of view.

 

I also think the "forced entry" term should be relooked at.

 

Sometimes I think it would be better to pay R2,000 every month into a savings account.

Really the kicker here....changing said T&C's on the fly without proper communication isn't cricket.