Naked insurance claim

[cadenceblur]

26 minutes ago, M L said:

Why is RAW pushing repairs over replacements?

To save the insurance companies money and to ensure that repair companies make some money , on both fronts the insured party or customer is short changed . 
How can an assessor over ride the brand owner ?

all due respect to the repairer but that’s not their call to make . 

Edited Wednesday at 01:40 PM by cadenceblur

[Eugene]

4 hours ago, Bub Marley said:

Im a broker with contracts with all major insurance companies. So I’m just relaying my experience over the years. These types of claims are not as clear cut as you claim by saying wear and tear wont be considered. You’re being extremely naive if you believe that to be the case. 

What exactly are you saying? So if my car has 150, 000km on it and I hit a pothole and damage my rim. A rim replacement is R5k. Are you saying that the insurance company will state that the wheel is worn and therefore will only cover a percentage of it? 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:55 PM by Eugene
Changed

[Lynskey]

2 hours ago, Eugene said:

What exactly are you saying? So if my car has 150, 000km on it and I hit a pothole and damage my rim. A rim replacement is R5k. Are you saying that the insurance company will state that the wheel is worn and therefore will only cover a percentage of it? 

 

 

Kind of agree with you. This is how it goes. Depreciation cannot be a factor. Unless you supply like with like. Insurance are not there to pay you out. They are a business. Profit counts and they will spend 30 to save 20. I got this feeling very much from naked and hollard. But again you will consistently have good and bad. For and against. It seems like such a terrible business. They will literally employ people to not pay you. Ethics is not their forte.

[Mongoose!]

On 5/13/2025 at 1:14 PM, Zatek said:

If the bike is written off how can they only pay a portion as any wheels.carbon or alu would have been written off. Even the saddle was broken due to the force off the impact.

I am following this thread and just to come back to the OP for better understanding

So, the bike was insured with alu wheels?

The alu wheels were not involved in the crash but at home?

Wheels involved in crash was borrowed carbon wheels.

Did the insurance company (Naked) indicate that they will subtract the value of your alu wheels from settlement?  (which is undamaged and at home at time of the crash) 

Did they define wheels as in (rims; tires'; tubes; cassette and skewers)? Calculated at replacement value 

You use the term "would have been written off"

My understanding is the wheels you paid a premium on, and the insurance company carried the risk on, is undamaged and should be excluded from the settlement?

apologies if you already clarified this in a previous post - only scanned through the 7 pages

Thanks for sharing your experience and updates - we all are leaning from it🙏

 

[WR 1.0]

12 hours ago, Eugene said:

What exactly are you saying? So if my car has 150, 000km on it and I hit a pothole and damage my rim. A rim replacement is R5k. Are you saying that the insurance company will state that the wheel is worn and therefore will only cover a percentage of it? 

 

 

There was a NFO (OSTI) ruling that Insurers cannot apply betterment on worn tyres.

There is a similar ruling that Insurers may use alternative or second hand parts where your vehicle is out of warranty. (You cannot expect to get a new door fitted to your 20 year old mazda as example)

[Zatek]

So Naked only accept partial acceptance but here is the kicker. I need to buy the items first and provide pop they will reimburse me. What is the point of having insurance if I must pay it first?

[Edereese]

6 minutes ago, Zatek said:

So Naked only accept partial acceptance but here is the kicker. I need to buy the items first and provide pop they will reimburse me. What is the point of having insurance if I must pay it first?

The good thing is that they will now cover the borrowed rims that was damaged in your possession. Personally I think that is a win.

 

[Mongoose!]

3 minutes ago, Edereese said:

The good thing is that they will now cover the borrowed rims that was damaged in your possession. Personally I think that is a win.

 

How can wheels that was not insured be covered?

No insurance premiums were paid on it by the OP. The insurance company did not carry any risk on it being damaged. 

Is the wheels that the premiums and risk  were based on not undamaged?

Did the insurance company requested the undamaged wheels back as part of settlement?

Please provide clarification how the insurer reasoned to come to such conclusion .

It insurance world it almost appears too good to be true 🤔

[Dusty]

52 minutes ago, Zatek said:

So Naked only accept partial acceptance but here is the kicker. I need to buy the items first and provide pop they will reimburse me. What is the point of having insurance if I must pay it first?

Including the cracked frame?

[The Ouzo]

2 hours ago, WR 1.0 said:

Insurers may use alternative

yeah but with cars they sometimes take it to far.

For instance many cars lidar/camera safety equipment will not work 100% with a non OEM windscreens, but insurers will fight to have alternative windscreens installed, putting their clients at risk because the safety systems are not working 100%.

[Bub Marley]

15 hours ago, Eugene said:

What exactly are you saying? So if my car has 150, 000km on it and I hit a pothole and damage my rim. A rim replacement is R5k. Are you saying that the insurance company will state that the wheel is worn and therefore will only cover a percentage of it? 

 

 

This is the problem with wheels and suspension/ mechanical damage claims. The onus is on you to prove that it was the pothole that caused the rim to crack and it’s not because just general wear and tear. Sometimes it’s pretty easy to spot depending on how much it’s actually damaged. But a lot of times you have clients wanting a new rim because of a slight buckle or because of a hairline crack and if it’s an older vehicle, they will definitely have someone assess it first. Hence why i say it’s not as straightforward as it seems.

[Eugene]

Lots being said about the insurer covering the wheels. 

The insured paid premiums on a bicycle, which includes all the parts that make up a bicycle. Surely then, the wheels should be covered as they form part of the bike. Does it matter if the wheels were owned by someone else? 

The only nuance is that the friends wheels may have increased the value of the bike and for that moment, the insured may have been under insured. 

[W@nted]

3 hours ago, Zatek said:

So Naked only accept partial acceptance but here is the kicker. I need to buy the items first and provide pop they will reimburse me. What is the point of having insurance if I must pay it first?

To which value may you go shopping now? Full insured amount? New frame? New wheels?

[Bub Marley]

7 minutes ago, Eugene said:

Lots being said about the insurer covering the wheels. 

The insured paid premiums on a bicycle, which includes all the parts that make up a bicycle. Surely then, the wheels should be covered as they form part of the bike. Does it matter if the wheels were owned by someone else? 

The only nuance is that the friends wheels may have increased the value of the bike and for that moment, the insured may have been under insured. 

If he had just registered the claim normally, they’d have probably just paid out. The fact that he made it known he was riding someone else’s wheels, probably alerted them or flagged the claim which meant for investigating needed to be done. This is why having a broker is valuable as he would’ve provided with some guidance as to what to say and what not to say. 

[Mongoose!]

5 minutes ago, W@nted said:

To which value may you go shopping now? Full insured amount? New frame? New wheels?

Guess only frame as he still has his old wheels. The money paid out for wheels is to replace the borrowed wheels 

[Zebra]

Whew, @zatek, unpopular opinion, but here goes:

it feels like you edited MANY of your posts to give a bit more clarity, after-the-fact, well done for that…but….

…I, too, feel you cannot claim for someone else’s carbon wheels damaged the ONE day you swapped your wheels out. Would you really have phoned insurance during working hours to advise them of the temporary swap (and cover needed, for the next day)? Only you can know, but you did/could not since after 7pm at nite…

you complain FREQUENTLY about ‘it taking 6 days for insurance to decide’; I do not feel that is an unacceptable amount of time, in fact i would be HAPPY - if i had a claim - for it to be settled in 6 days!

…you rebut nearly EVERY constructive counter-point to your own view; i reckon the ‘odd’ ‘you may have a point’ would be more balanced.

Finally, you yourself feel you may have got your ‘line’ wrong over the railway lines; for that reason alone, i reckon you could be a BIT less forceful on the ‘delay’ in payout, rather being happy they are considering your claim, and in full knowledge that - yes - you pay your premiums, so are rightly entitled to cover.

Sure, fight your corner for whats right, but maybe a little bit more nuanced.

Peace. Out.