Forum menu
I'm not arguing that it can, just that that isn't the basis I understand (based on research and personal experience) that an insurance company will pay out on.
You never get put back in the same position - you've always lost out. Exactly the same for cars. If my 8 year old VW Caddy Maxi Life was written off tomorrow I'm not going to get put in the same position. Same colour, same milage (<50k in 8 years), options? Not a hope.
Even if I was paid out the new value of my old bike costs have gone up and the model I had then is no longer made.
So you're not put back in the same position - you get £x but that doesn't give you the car back.
Classic cars are normally agreed values. Ie when you insure it you agree a value for it and that is its insured value.
No different for any other car then - non classics have a book value that shows on the insurance from memory.
Insurance companies will always try to minimise their losses - but stick to your guns and you will get a good settlement and unless you can be put back in the same position with the money you are being offered then keep on fighting. they rely on you giving up..
@simons_nicolai-uk - see what I wrote earlier. You're confusing the position of someone who crashes their own car and is reinstated by their own insurers, vs someone who has had their vehicle crashed into. The limitations placed on the replacement value of your car etc are a matter of the insurance contract you have agreed with them. But the owner of an asset which is damaged by their car is not party to those limitations.
Now, those principles are slightly adjusted in the UK because motor insurance has some regulations applied to it, but the fundamentals remain. If you are caused loss by someone through their negligence then you have a right to reinstatement as a matter of law. The fact that the process is commonly handled by insurance processes doesn't change that right, and this is especially the case where the party injured isn't another motorist with compulsory vehicle insurance.
So as for a classic car - if my 1924 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost is destroyed by you driving your Astra into it and writing both cars off, I won't be touching my insurance policy - I'll be expecting your insurance company to make me an offer equivalent to the amount I reasonably think I would be awarded in court, which would no doubt involve expert witness about the inherent value of my car. OTOH, if I crash my RRSG into your Astra, I will be limited by the value I've agreed with my insurers.
stick to your guns and you will get a good settlement
which is a very different proposition from what you started claiming and is not 'new for old' which was where we started.
I got new for old when my bike was stolen
an offer equivalent to the amount I reasonably think I would be awarded in court,
and do you really think a court is going to award the value of a brand new bike against, say, a 10 year old used one that's been written off in a collision?
Yes if a secondhand one in similar condition cannot be found. If the only way to put you back in the position you were in before the crash is a new bike then a new bike it is.
http://www.lampkins.co.uk/advice/helmet-and-clothing-claim-following-bike-accident/
In an accident claim you can recover losses from the person at fault, obviously usually paid for by their insurers. The law behind this is the law of negligence and in that area the law will look to put you back in the position you would have been in if the accident hadn’t occurred.Techincally therefore you would have your ruined clothing and helmet replaced with exactly the same items of the same value, quality and age but this just can’t happen for obvious reasons so this has to be converted into a sum of money. So what sum is appropriate?
Well let’s say the clothing cost £100 and was a few years old. Is it right that the loss is the full replacement value of £100 or should the award of damages reflect the fact that if bought off eBay at that age the true value would be around £30-50 for those items? Generally the court would assess damages at the true value as opposed to the new value thus making a deduction for “betterment”. The theory is that the award would be to allow you to replace the items with similar ones of the same age and value.
So that applies to clothing but what about a helmet? Well as expert bike accident lawyers we have argued this matter before Judges so often that we are now of the firm view that helmet claims should always be for the full amount. Our theory is that a second hand helmet is actually worth nothing because no one would buy such a vital and compulsory piece of equipment secondhand as it may have been dropped. So on the day of the accident the helmet was actually worth nothing so on a strict application of the law, an award of nothing should be made. This would clearly be unfair and adsurd so the actual accepted argument is that as the helmet will need to be replaced with a new item, then it is the cost of that comparable new item that will be awarded.
So in conclusion – always argue and get 100% for the value of any damaged helmet but be prepared to negotiate some deduction for betterment on other items
http://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/bicycle-accident-claims/
If your bike is damaged beyond repair or the cost of repair is higher than the value of the bike, then you can claim compensation that is equal to its value prior to the accident.
A cheque to pay into your bank account for the full value of your bike before your accident.
If you've done better than that well done.
I knew the game I was playing and made sure I presented my claim so as to ensure I got enough back to buy a new bike. I did this by underestimating the age of things, listing everything at the full current RRP and providing links to the distributor website (rather than receipts - who has receipts for things a few years old anyway?)
simons - thats ok IF A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT CAN BE FOUND. Usually however it is not possible to do so hence you get the price of a new bike.
You have to be put back in the same position you were before the accident. If you cannot get second-hand replacement then its a new bike for you and in most cases this is what happens.
Betterment happens all the time in car repairs - have a bash that needs a new wing - your rusty old wing will not be replaced with a rusty old one - it will be a new one
Betterment happens all the time in car repairs - have a bash that needs a new wing - your rusty old wing will not be replaced with a rusty old one - it will be a new one
And if part of your bike is damaged and can be repaired (ie the broken parts economically replaced). I've not said that won't happen. The argument is new for old on write off.
3 links there from cycle claims specialists TJ - all of which say you get the value of your bike before the accident not the price of a new bike but I"m sure you know better than them.
Interesting Simons, I can see the logic on both sides, would be good to know a definitive answer.
They maybe caved for me as the sum was small - though you'd think the same would apply to most bike-claims.
There are ways you can enhance a payout on a total loss of a car over the base 'Trade' Glass's figure, and this is where loss adjusters come in. How applicable this would be to a pedal cycle I'm not sure though.
Presenting a fat folder of repair invoices, service reports etc is a worthwhile thing if you can do it - anything to demonstrate and support your position that your vehicle was not in simple 'Trade' condition and was, in fact far better than year would suggest. This would be followed up by a visit from the insurance company's loss adjuster who will examine the remains to see if in his opinion your position is justified. I've had this happen with two write-offs when I was younger, one that was burnt out and one that had been heavily crashed into by a third party and was simply beyond economic. In both cases I was able to replace with an item of equivalent quality.
I think the problem with bikes is that they can be surprisingly expensive in the eyes of a non-cyclist and they are frequently not taken seriously as people associate them with children's toys.
If I'd had a very recent 7k road bike destroyed in a non-fault RTA then I'd be claiming for what I no longer had, and holding out - possibly ending up going the legal route although not with a third party claims management company. While there is no established s/h market for bikes, I could see the HMRC depreciation scale from the C2W guidance being used potentially, and it would be difficult to argue against it. A custom/self build would more or less have to be valued as frame plus pile of parts although some insurers might wish to offer what they considered an equivalent replacement from Wheelies - making use of their B2B discounts to save on an actual cash payout.
They maybe caved for me as the sum was small - though you'd think the same would apply to most bike-claims.
This is sort of key. If there's any business acumen applied to loss adjustment teams they must have a value on their own time and take that into account in how much they're prepared to spend going back and forth.
When I got run over by a bus (concussion, buckled front wheel, shorts, shirt, watch, helmet). I claimed for the replacement cost of those parts and a fairly arbitrary amount as compensation (maybe £500) for injuries. Total claim about £1k. I wrote a letter and said that was what I considered fair and it wasn't for discussion - if they didn't accept I'd pass the claim on to a solicitor whose costs would be added. They paid up in full - as soon as a solicitor was involved there would have been £100's in costs.
For 'no injury' claims the solicitors aren't really interested but that approach might still be worth a try.
The OP should definitely be claiming compensation for his injuries - http://www.cycle-sos.co.uk/claim-calculator/ suggests 1-2k for minor minor injuries (which might be why my bus claim was accepted without fuss).
This time I was really lucky - destroying a bike and doing nothing more than lightly spraining a thumb is pretty blessed. I couldn't honestly claim it stopped me doing anything at all.
Interesting Simons, I can see the logic on both sides, would be good to know a definitive answer.
I think it's fairly clear - in that last quote they're making a point that a cycle helmet is a (rare) exception that they've had to argue in court.
I agree with Simons, you should be wary of expecting to be put back into a position which is superior to that which you were in prior to an accident. Whether in practice this can be achieved in the context of a part-used bike (especially if it is one which is no longer sold or there is a limited second hand market for) is the difficult bit. In terms of legal entitlements, that's what you are legally entitled to UNLESS you have some form of insurance policy which guarantees you something different even if you're not at fault.
(e.g. some household policies have accidental damage cover or contents cover included which are explicitly for when you have done nothing wrong yourself and which explicitly have new for old replacement policies in them)
Once you start disputing any offer made to you, assuming you are not being completely bonkers about it, you may find that the insurers are reluctant to see their legal and staff costs rack up and therefore could just end up settling to avoid a protracted dispute. Though OTOH they may just toss it over to your court and say "final offer, see you court".
Oddly my bike was subject to a wear-and-tear valuation, but the kit that was destroyed (shoes, shorts, glasses) weren't and they paid as new-for-old.
(simons) and do you really think a court is going to award the value of a brand new bike against, say, a 10 year old used one that's been written off in a collision?(tj) Yes if a secondhand one in similar condition cannot be found. If the only way to put you back in the position you were in before the crash is a new bike then a new bike it is
No, the court won't. My claim went to court. The payout for the bike increased slightly (it had new £150 wheels on which the insurer ignored) but it wasn't new-for-old, it was with wear and tear as an 18 month old bike. And courts couldn't care less about whether you can find a 'direct' direct placement. As has been said repeatedly a new bike isn't putting you back in the same position it is a betterment.
Just idle musings really but has anyone tried to put the onus on the insurance company finding a replacement bike? IE get them to prove the your one year old £5000 carbon wonder bike is readily available s/h (locally?) for £2500?
If you have to travel to get this replacement bike, has anyone considered billing the insurance company for lost wages or travel expenses involved in doing their legwork?
IE get them to prove the your one year old £5000 carbon wonder bike is readily available s/h (locally?) for £2500?
they're not actually that unreasonable. In my case they paid out 80% of the total claim on the basis of a bike I'd said was c5 years old (extras were some newer replacement parts and clothing etc). The amount they offered matched what I'd listed as the new/replacement cost of the bike and they noted that a most of the other items could be bought for some discount to RRP online.
@markgraylish - you need to stop thinking about the other party's insurance company has having any responsibility to you at all. They don't. All they have to do is discharge their duty to the policy holder. They don't have to prove anything to you. Its up to you whether you accept an offer that they make.
They may be persuadable that the offer that they've made is unreasonable, but they aren't liable for the time and effort you put into rejecting their offer.
The more I read these threads the more I think I should get cover through one of the cycling organisations. Which one is best? CTC, British cycling? And do they offer insurance for your bikes? My house insurance doesn't really cover the value of the bikes in my house.
BigJohn, can't speak about CTC (Cycling UK as it is now) but I went through my BC cover (they use Leigh Day) for my accident. Mine had a personal injury element with 4 weeks off work which seems to be their threshold but I can only speak positively of them - they kept me informed and involved in the decision making and ultimately took it to court when the other insurer refused to budge from their low initial offer, and the final court-authorised payout was very close to L.Ds original claim (actually a fractionally higher) which suggests they've got plenty of experience and knowledge of valuations.
Pretty sure you can get (discounted?) bike insurance via them but mine are covered on my household insurance.
I'm not sure there's much of a discount on the insurance policies through CTC/LCC and standalone bike insurance tends to be very expensive - circa 10% of value each year in premium.
Getting better house insurance seems to be the best solution.
At law, it is the claimant's responsibility to figure out/evidence/prove the amount of the loss. So you'd need to find adverts/ebay/whatever to justify the claim. This can work for you if you look in the right places!
+1 for household insurance. New for Old, then sue for injury, hire, time off work, excess and uplifted household premium...
Well my insurance requirement is a bit complicated due to the fact that I have a [i]rather[/i] nice road bike on long term loan from a riding pal. He got a new Pinarello Dogma to match his new Lamborghini and I got to borrow the one that matched the Aventador he got rid of.
Generous as he is, I don't think he'd take it too kindly if I lost it.
If he's as wealthy as he sounds, I would imagine he'd be able to get your possession of the Aventador-matching bike covered on the policies he's got in place, in which case - no worries! I would, if I were you, ask him about it though. I wouldn't want to lose a friend who had a Lambo!
Neither do I! And he's got 2.