Will this count against me in an accident claim?



K

[email protected]

Guest
I'm making a personal injuries claim about a road accident but there's
a bit of a 'grey area' as far as damage to the bike is concerned.

Prior to the accident I had only been using the 'central' 7 gears of
my 21 speed bike because I hadn't got around to finding out what was
preventing the left-hand shifter from working properly. Also, the
chain would sometimes slip but only when going uphill.

The accident happened on level ground where neither of the above were
factors.

Would it count against me if any assessment made by my LBS showed up
these faults? (ie should I just emphasize the personal injuries).

Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
reasonable, but these aren't".

Do insurance companies ask for an independent assessment? I've no idea
how these things work and I want to keep it simple. I'm wondering if
it might be easier just to say, "The bike's more or less ok but this
x-ray shows I got hurt!"

Krakajak
 
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

>Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
>insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
>weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
>claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
>reasonable, but these aren't".

I should have clarified the above:

Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok but
the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries and
these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the bike claim
aren't"

Krakajak
 
On Dec 5, 7:41 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> >Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
> >insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
> >weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
> >claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
> >reasonable, but these aren't".
>
> I should have clarified the above:
>
> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok but
> the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries and
> these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the bike claim
> aren't"
>
> Krakajak


I would have thought that if you were honest and said up front that
such-and-such was already broken (so not part of the claim), but these
other things were fine untill the accident, then you should be fine
(particularly as it give the impression of reducing the claim to the
insurance company).

PhilD

--
<><
 
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
> >insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
> >weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
> >claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
> >reasonable, but these aren't".
>
> I should have clarified the above:
>
> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok but
> the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries and
> these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the bike claim
> aren't"

The one time I've got money from an insurance company, it was the
latter - they paid for cosmetic damage to the brake levers and
replacing the bar-tape, they paid for my shoes and helmet, but they
rejected the T-shirt because it was too old - apparently it was
worthless.

But they may well try rejecting everything initially - 'reasonable'
and 'insurance company' are words not readily combined.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I'm making a personal injuries claim about a road accident but there's
> a bit of a 'grey area' as far as damage to the bike is concerned.
>
> Prior to the accident I had only been using the 'central' 7 gears of
> my 21 speed bike because I hadn't got around to finding out what was
> preventing the left-hand shifter from working properly. Also, the
> chain would sometimes slip but only when going uphill.
>
> The accident happened on level ground where neither of the above were
> factors.
>
> Would it count against me if any assessment made by my LBS showed up
> these faults? (ie should I just emphasize the personal injuries).
>
> Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
> insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
> weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
> claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
> reasonable, but these aren't".
>
> Do insurance companies ask for an independent assessment?

I don't know if they ever do. Certainly they don't always.

Present copies of your receipts for the parts and labour relevant to the
damage. Don't mention the malfunctioning parts of the bike.

> I've no idea
> how these things work and I want to keep it simple. I'm wondering if
> it might be easier just to say, "The bike's more or less ok but this
> x-ray shows I got hurt!"

Claiming for the bike as well won't do any harm. It won't make the
insurance company more likely to ask to have the bike fully inspected.

~PB
 
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
>> >insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
>> >weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
>> >claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
>> >reasonable, but these aren't".
>>
>> I should have clarified the above:
>>
>> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok but
>> the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries and
>> these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the bike claim
>> aren't"
>
> The one time I've got money from an insurance company, it was the
> latter - they paid for cosmetic damage to the brake levers and
> replacing the bar-tape, they paid for my shoes and helmet, but they
> rejected the T-shirt because it was too old - apparently it was
> worthless.
>
> But they may well try rejecting everything initially - 'reasonable'
> and 'insurance company' are words not readily combined.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

I would have thought that any claim for repairs that can be shown were not
caused by the accident could invalidate the whole claim.

It might even be considered a fraudulent claim.......

Depends on how well they assess the damage for themselves I suppose.

Most insurance companies will look for a way out to insure (pun intended)
they do not pay.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm making a personal injuries claim about a road accident but there's
> a bit of a 'grey area' as far as damage to the bike is concerned.
>
> Prior to the accident I had only been using the 'central' 7 gears of
> my 21 speed bike because I hadn't got around to finding out what was
> preventing the left-hand shifter from working properly. Also, the
> chain would sometimes slip but only when going uphill.

Sounds like the gears might just have been badly adjusted rather than
"faulty"
 
Tired wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
>>>> insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those
>>>> repairs weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out
>>>> the whole claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say
>>>> "These parts are reasonable, but these aren't".
>>>
>>> I should have clarified the above:
>>>
>>> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok
>>> but the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries
>>> and these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the
>>> bike claim aren't"
>>
>> The one time I've got money from an insurance company, it was the
>> latter - they paid for cosmetic damage to the brake levers and
>> replacing the bar-tape, they paid for my shoes and helmet, but they
>> rejected the T-shirt because it was too old - apparently it was
>> worthless.
>>
>> But they may well try rejecting everything initially - 'reasonable'
>> and 'insurance company' are words not readily combined.

> I would have thought that any claim for repairs that can be shown
> were not caused by the accident could invalidate the whole claim.
>
> It might even be considered a fraudulent claim.......

The claim for the bike should only be for parts damaged in the incident.
These can highlighted on the receipt and explained in a letter.

If concerned about alerting the insurance company to faults with other
parts, ask the LBS to put those parts on a separate receipt or get them
fixed another time.

By the way, you don't necessarily have to use a bike shop to satisfy the
insurance company. You can order the parts and fit them yourself. I did
this for someone I know who made a successful claim.

~PB
 
Pete Biggs wrote:
> Tired wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected]
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
>>>>> insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those
>>>>> repairs weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out
>>>>> the whole claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say
>>>>> "These parts are reasonable, but these aren't".
>>>>
>>>> I should have clarified the above:
>>>>
>>>> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim is ok
>>>> but the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal injuries
>>>> and these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the
>>>> bike claim aren't"

>> I would have thought that any claim for repairs that can be shown
>> were not caused by the accident could invalidate the whole claim.
>>
>> It might even be considered a fraudulent claim.......
>
> The claim for the bike should only be for parts damaged in the
> incident. These can highlighted on the receipt and explained in a
> letter.
> If concerned about alerting the insurance company to faults with other
> parts, ask the LBS to put those parts on a separate receipt or get
> them fixed another time.
>
> By the way, you don't necessarily have to use a bike shop to satisfy
> the insurance company. You can order the parts and fit them
> yourself. I did this for someone I know who made a successful claim.

You can also claim a fair rate for your time.

I did this when I had a car claim (hit from behind) and had to repair a
wooden trunk which was strapped to the boot of the car. As I'd made the
trunk in the first place, I was best placed to repair it. I put a figure
for time and materials on the claim, and the other party's insurance company
settled that with a cheque (it was only about £50). Other repairs to the
car (welding and painting) were done by a garage who were also paid by the
other party's insurance (several hundred pounds).


The fraud issue is not relevant if the claim is honest. Claim for the damage
received in the crash. Don't claim for any other repairs the bike might
also require. Simple.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:47:41 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Do insurance companies ask for an independent assessment?
>
>I don't know if they ever do. Certainly they don't always.

I had an engineer come to my home to assess the damage to my bike. It
was lucky I kept all the parts.
 
Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
was needed). I'll pop down to my LBS today to see what they have to
say

Krakajak

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

>I'm making a personal injuries claim about a road accident but there's
>a bit of a 'grey area' as far as damage to the bike is concerned.
>
>Prior to the accident I had only been using the 'central' 7 gears of
>my 21 speed bike because I hadn't got around to finding out what was
>preventing the left-hand shifter from working properly. Also, the
>chain would sometimes slip but only when going uphill.
>
>The accident happened on level ground where neither of the above were
>factors.
>
>Would it count against me if any assessment made by my LBS showed up
>these faults? (ie should I just emphasize the personal injuries).
>
>Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if the
>insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha - those repairs
>weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the whole
>claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These parts are
>reasonable, but these aren't".
>
>Do insurance companies ask for an independent assessment? I've no idea
>how these things work and I want to keep it simple. I'm wondering if
>it might be easier just to say, "The bike's more or less ok but this
>x-ray shows I got hurt!"
>
>Krakajak
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
> claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
> use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
> was needed). I'll pop down to my LBS today to see what they have to
> say

Are you saying that there could be a claim by the other side that the lack
of extra gears *caused* the accident?

Some bikes have only 3 or sometimes only a single gear!
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
> claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
> use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
> was needed).

Not a chance. The other side might try to claim that your failure to
maintain your
bicycle was contributory negligence but they would have no chance of
succeeding
with that. It's not as if you had faulty brakes. A bicycle whose front
changer is stuck
on the middle ring is perfectly roadworthy. There are many get-you-
home bodges that
leave the bike in a much worse state than that but still perfectly
roadworthy.

In any case it would be a brave mechanic who would be prepared to
swear that a bike
that needed adjusting after a crash also needed those same adjustments
before the
crash.

Let us know how things progress.

--
Dave...
 
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:32:40 -0000, "Adrian Boliston"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
>> claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
>> use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
>> was needed). I'll pop down to my LBS today to see what they have to
>> say
>
>Are you saying that there could be a claim by the other side that the lack
>of extra gears *caused* the accident?
>
>Some bikes have only 3 or sometimes only a single gear!
>

I've never been in this situation before. Having heard horror stories
about how insurance companies sometimes behave, I wondered if they
might try and confuse the issue - I was just speculating upon worst
case scenarios/ trying to find out what to expect.
 
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 02:44:50 -0800 (PST), dkahn400
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
>> claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
>> use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
>> was needed).
>
>Not a chance. The other side might try to claim that your failure to
>maintain your
>bicycle was contributory negligence but they would have no chance of
>succeeding
>with that. It's not as if you had faulty brakes. A bicycle whose front
>changer is stuck
>on the middle ring is perfectly roadworthy. There are many get-you-
>home bodges that
>leave the bike in a much worse state than that but still perfectly
>roadworthy.
>
>In any case it would be a brave mechanic who would be prepared to
>swear that a bike
>that needed adjusting after a crash also needed those same adjustments
>before the
>crash.
>
>Let us know how things progress.

Thanks, Dave - that's quite reassuring!

The brakes, tyres and lights were all OK and the bike is going in for
an assessment next week. To my eyes it looks ok except for the broken
gear cable and I have explained to my LBS about the pre-existing
problem (ie 7 gears).

Thanks again for your interest - and I'll let the newsgroup know how
things go.
 
On Dec 6, 1:29 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:32:40 -0000, "Adrian Boliston"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Thanks everyone for replying. I guess my main concern was that the
> >> claim for personal injuries might be thrown out because I could only
> >> use 7 of the 21 gears when the accident happened (ie some adjustment
> >> was needed). I'll pop down to my LBS today to see what they have to
> >> say
>
> >Are you saying that there could be a claim by the other side that the lack
> >of extra gears *caused* the accident?
>
> >Some bikes have only 3 or sometimes only a single gear!
>
> I've never been in this situation before. Having heard horror stories
> about how insurance companies sometimes behave, I wondered if they
> might try and confuse the issue - I was just speculating upon worst
> case scenarios/ trying to find out what to expect.

Your claim is not for very much. You may well find that a new bike is
the cheapest way for the insurance company to settle, irrespective of
the original state of the bike.

In which case any level of claim for repair to the bike above the
immediate cost of a replacement equivalent bike is moot.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:

> Your claim is not for very much. You may well find that a new bike is
> the cheapest way for the insurance company to settle, irrespective of
> the original state of the bike.

That makes no sense if the claim is "not for very much". In this case it is
cheaper for them simply to pay for what you bill them for. They don't
always insist on inspecting the bike.

~PB
 
On Dec 6, 2:10 pm, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Your claim is not for very much. You may well find that a new bike is
> > the cheapest way for the insurance company to settle, irrespective of
> > the original state of the bike.
>
> That makes no sense if the claim is "not for very much". In this case it is
> cheaper for them simply to pay for what you bill them for. They don't
> always insist on inspecting the bike.

'Not very much' in this context is below a thousand pounds. Compare
that to the cost of even a minor bump in a car, or injury payouts.
The cost of new gears, handlebar, tape, pedals, wheels, and fitting is
likely to be so close to, or above the cost of a new bike of similar
standard that they will offer a new bike rather than haggle over the
details.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:10 pm, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Martin wrote:
>>> Your claim is not for very much. You may well find that a new bike
>>> is the cheapest way for the insurance company to settle,
>>> irrespective of the original state of the bike.
>>
>> That makes no sense if the claim is "not for very much". In this
>> case it is cheaper for them simply to pay for what you bill them
>> for. They don't always insist on inspecting the bike.
>
> 'Not very much' in this context is below a thousand pounds.

Sorry, I still don't get it. If it's less than a thousand pounds then you
automatically claim for a new bike???

> Compare
> that to the cost of even a minor bump in a car, or injury payouts.
> The cost of new gears, handlebar, tape, pedals, wheels, and fitting is
> likely to be so close to, or above the cost of a new bike of similar
> standard that they will offer a new bike rather than haggle over the
> details.

New gears, handlebar, tape, pedals and wheels? Have I missed a post in this
thread?

If the cost of parts + labour for the repair is less than the cost of a new
bike then that's what you should claim for, and that's what the insurance
company would prefer to pay. They won't haggle if it's a relatively small
amount of money and the repairs are explained thoroughly.

(I write from experience as I did the repairs and wrote the report for a
relative of mine who claimed from a driver's insurance company).

In any case a new bike is not always preferable if the old one is a
much-loved discontinued or customised model.

~PB
 
"Tired" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:29:47 +0000, [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Not having been in this situation before I was wondering if
>>> >the
>>> >insurance company I'm claiming against might say, "Aha -
>>> >those repairs
>>> >weren't caused by the accident therefore we'll throw out the
>>> >whole
>>> >claim!". Or do they look at the whole thing and say "These
>>> >parts are
>>> >reasonable, but these aren't".
>>>
>>> I should have clarified the above:
>>>
>>> Would the insurance company say "The personal injuries claim
>>> is ok but
>>> the bike claim isn't" or would they say "The personal
>>> injuries and
>>> these parts of the bike claim are ok but these parts of the
>>> bike claim
>>> aren't"
>>
>> The one time I've got money from an insurance company, it was
>> the
>> latter - they paid for cosmetic damage to the brake levers and
>> replacing the bar-tape, they paid for my shoes and helmet, but
>> they
>> rejected the T-shirt because it was too old - apparently it
>> was
>> worthless.
>>
>> But they may well try rejecting everything initially -
>> 'reasonable'
>> and 'insurance company' are words not readily combined.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>> --
>> |\ /| no .sig
>> |o o|
>> |/ \|
>
> I would have thought that any claim for repairs that can be
> shown were not caused by the accident could invalidate the
> whole claim.
>
> It might even be considered a fraudulent claim.......
>
> Depends on how well they assess the damage for themselves I
> suppose.
>
> Most insurance companies will look for a way out to insure (pun
> intended) they do not pay.

The basic principle of insurance is that you should not be any
worse off after settlement than you were beforehand. Similarly,
you should not be any better off. That's why the insurers call it
"betterment". If, in order to repair the parts that were damaged
it becomes necessary to replace other parts that were already
inoperable, that's "betterment". Unless, of course, you have a
"new for old" policy. Claims can be adjusted for this element -
it's open to negotiation (usually downwards for the insurers!).

Example - your cranks / groupset / whatever are damaged in a
"road strike" following a collision. The whole transmission was
already worn, but the only way to make the bike rideable is to
replace the parts with new. That's "betterment", and you may have
a claim adjusted to account for this.

In summary, you MUST tell the insurers about any known defects
(even if they were non-contributory).

--
MatSav
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Badger count
Replies
22
Views
692
UK and Europe
Peter Scandrett
P
M
Bus count
Replies
3
Views
174
UK and Europe
Sirius631
S
M
Tour of the (Surrey) Hills 21st Aug head count
Replies
67
Views
3K
UK and Europe
nik
N
K
MTB teeth count.
Replies
5
Views
376
UK and Europe
Richard Goodman
R
M
Geek count
Replies
114
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
Top Bottom Back