Naked insurance claim

[eddy]

2 hours ago, Mongoose! said:

always wondered on the issue with carbon repairs.

.."must be put back in the position you were in before the incident excluding resale value"...? excluding weight difference - 

In the automotive world "panel beaters" are replaced with "panel replacers" One small mark on a panel of an insured vehicle and it will be replaced... (yes car panels are made of metal and not carbon 🤷‍♂️)

Any thoughts 

Should we accept carbon repairing instead of replacing from insurance companies? 

 

As I understand your position, a small ding on a frame should, like a ding on a car door, lead to the frame being replaced rather than repaired, and the insurance company should do this.

Everything is insurable at a price and you should ask your broker to find an underwriter who is prepared to accept such risk and to quote you a premium.

The premium will however be commensurate with the sum at risk.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by eddy

[eddy]

2 minutes ago, eddy said:

.

.

Edited 6 hours ago by eddy
Duplicate

[Andreas_187]

22 hours ago, Zatek said:

Naked and RAW decided only the wheels are covered as the rest is due to wear and tear (carbon fractures on 2 deferent places) over the years. My Look pedals are bent but according to RAW is normal wear and tear after sending the videos and Look Internasional confirmed it was not due to wear and tear. 

No mention of my saddle that broke as well.

 

What are these photos showing? I can see the crack in the saddle but that's it

[Lynskey]

35 minutes ago, eddy said:

As I understand your position, a small ding on a frame should, like a ding on a car door, lead to the frame being replaced rather than repaired, and the insurance company should do this.

Everything is insurable at a price and you should ask your broker to find an underwriter who is prepared to accept such risk and to quote you a premium.

The premium will however be commensurate with the sum at risk.

 

I think this is it. You need to have an understanding from both sides. But I have never heard of an insurance company that does this. It also has so much interpretation from both sides. Very difficult situation in my opinion. I am still holding thumbs for the Op. I do understand his struggle though. As mentioned my experience with them was a nightmare. 

[Mongoose!]

On a side note.

Once an ad ends with the following phrase :  "smal carbon repair done on frame with lifetime warranty...."

I just losing interest.  Admiration for honesty of seller  though.

Maybe it's just me 

Edited 6 hours ago by Mongoose!

[cadenceblur]

13 minutes ago, Mongoose! said:

On a side note.

Once an ad ends with the following phrase :  "smal carbon repair done on frame with lifetime warranty...."

I just losing interest.  Admiration for honesty of seller  though.

Maybe it's just me 

and therein is the problem, your R50000 frame us suddenly worth a fraction of the cost.

[Bub Marley]

4 hours ago, Mongoose! said:

always wondered on the issue with carbon repairs.

You have a small incident with your $$$ insured S works.

The over eager insurance assessor (keeping his / her X mas bonus in mind) recommends your frame must be repaired and not replaced. Mentioning a carbon expert accredited with Nasa aerospace division / doing part time consulting for F1 and lifetime warrantee on its work (situated in Brakpan). 

You receive your bike back. There is a difference in owning a S work bike and owning a S works carbon repaired (this part was resprayed) bike 👀

Just try selling a repaired bike here on Bikehub..

Maybe one has to carefully read through the fine print of policy..."must be put back in the position you were in before the incident excluding resale value"...? excluding weight difference - Jip your repaired SL8 S works frame will be slightly heavier than the non repaired one. Yes the interference with the carbon layup on repaired area will / might have an impact... depending on how resistant you are on cycling marketing and bias YouTube videos  🙃

In the automotive world "panel beaters" are replaced with "panel replacers" One small mark on a panel of an insured vehicle and it will be replaced... (yes car panels are made of metal and not carbon 🤷‍♂️)

Any thoughts 

Should we accept carbon repairing instead of replacing from insurance companies? 

Anyone had a claim where replacing was rejected and repaired and insurer convinced you that the repair is "just as good or better" than it originally was.

 

 

 

We had a discussion about this in another thread quite recently. Unfortunately because bike values have skyrocketed, we’re going to become accustomed to having bikes repaired instead of replaced. The insurers, bike manufacturers and repairers need to get together and figure all this out. There needs to be some sort of agreement whereby a repaired frame carries the same safety standard and does not reduce the value of your car like we have in the motor industry. How they are going to get around this i have no idea at all. 

 

At the moment, I can understand where every party comes from. The insured is worried about safety and value of his asset. The insurer however is still running a business and right now bicycles are not a profitable line of business. So something has to give. What I foresee happening in the future is insurance premiums for bicycles will most likely continue to increase to make it more profitable. As it stands right now, one accident on your 200k bike means it’s most likely getting written off. So how does an insurer make money off this?

 

The best scenario for me would be, if there is a warranty of the frame, the manufacturer should cover the replacement in accordance with their policy unless the claim is accident related. So if the manufacturer is insisting that the bike must be replaced then they should be the ones covering this if its in line with their crash replacement policy. If there’s a shortfall, that’s when the insurance should kick in. There’s a difference between claiming after an accident for instance vs claiming because you went over a pothole and that’s caused a stress fracture. These sorts of incidents should be covered under the warranty.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tomik said:

I guess it depends on where the crack is and how bad it is. And yes, the value of the bike. But saying that, the end value will be diminished by the repair, so one isn't in the same position.

I had to fight this exact thing with Santam and RAW. They insisted on repairing my '22 BMC Team Machine SLR1 frame (equivalent to an S-works) which cracked on the chainstay after an impact (another rider rode into me from the side). BMC said no, I said no, RAW/CBR said yes, we fought a bit and eventually we settled on a frame replacement (which I had to source locally and could only find a '18). For me, that is close enough to the same position and I accepted the potential loss to be able to ride this fantastic bike again. I would not have been comfortable with a repaired frame going down Suikers at 70+kph.

This process took 6 weeks.  I'm no longer with Santam.

As a broker, I can only provide feedback on my experiences. As it stands, RAW are involved with all insurers. They have their hands in everything right now. So even if you’ve moved away from Santam, the chances of having RAW handle your claim at the new insurer is very high. Most insurers will act on what the assessor says. That’s why they employ them. And RAW are most definitely pushing repairs over replacements as it stands.

[Spank]

Sounds like a couch inspection needs to happen.

[Super Sywurm]

I have a very effective and easy solution for carbon frames that can crack.

#steelisreal

[SSCC]

1 hour ago, Bub Marley said:

The best scenario for me would be, if there is a warranty of the frame, the manufacturer should cover the replacement in accordance with their policy unless the claim is accident related.

This whole thread is about accidents not frame construction defects that are covered by the manufacturing warranty. The later is not an insurance issue.

 

1 hour ago, Bub Marley said:

There’s a difference between claiming after an accident for instance vs claiming because you went over a pothole and that’s caused a stress fracture. These sorts of incidents should be covered under the warranty.

What do you mean? What's the difference between an accident and hitting a pothole? Both damaged the frame and are not warranty related. Frame warranty covers manufacturing defects. Unlike helmets and some wheels that have a crash replacement warranty. What bike brands have a crash replacement warranty for bike frames? 

[Mongoose!]

Insurance companies should offer more than one product for bicycle insurance.  Specifically towards carbon frames:

Option 1

Replacement option. Damaged frame will be replaced.  High premium and no unpleasant surprises. 

Option 2

Damaged frame will be repaired.  Accredited carbon repair network and warranty.  Lower premium.  No unpleasant surprises. 

Simply solution.  Don't take "Replacement premiums" and want to settle with repairs. And don't suspect to pay "Repair premiums" and expect a replacement settlement. 

[Bub Marley]

13 minutes ago, SSCC said:

This whole thread is about accidents not frame construction defects that are covered by the manufacturing warranty. The later is not an insurance issue.

 

What do you mean? What's the difference between an accident and hitting a pothole? Both damaged the frame and are not warranty related. Frame warranty covers manufacturing defects. Unlike helmets and some wheels that have a crash replacement warranty. What bike brands have a crash replacement warranty for bike frames? 

If you compare it a vehicle for instance. If you crack a wheel because of a pothole, insurance will take wear and tear into account when paying out. The same applies if there is suspension damage to your car as a result. 

 

Some manufacturers, I’ll use Trek as an example, offer a discount on a new frame if its in a crash. 

 

My point is between the insurers and the manufacturers they need to come to an understanding that a carbon repair does not void your warranty. At the moment, any repair voids a warranty as far as I know. And if you voiding a warranty, then what consumer is not gonna fight you over this? There needs to be a panel of carbon approved repairs for each manufacturer. Like we have for vehicles. 

[Eugene]

3 hours ago, Bub Marley said:

If you compare it a vehicle for instance. If you crack a wheel because of a pothole, insurance will take wear and tear into account when paying out. The same applies if there is suspension damage to your car as a result. 

 

Not sure who you are insured with, but my insurance will replace/repair the wheel if it is damaged from a pothole. Wear and tear won't even be considered. 

[M L]

On 5/13/2025 at 11:50 AM, Zatek said:

The insured amount was less than replacement value with or without the varbon wheels. I don't want extra money for the carbon wheels just the insured amount.

Have dealt with Naked insurance on bike stuff more than once. Never had any issues. They use Riders at work which is a fantastic middle man.
 

[Bub Marley]

9 minutes ago, Eugene said:

Not sure who you are insured with, but my insurance will replace/repair the wheel if it is damaged from a pothole. Wear and tear won't even be considered. 

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.