Jump to content


Insurance doesn't pay for all theft damages


Super64
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2193 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have an issue with a motorcycle theft.

My bike was stolen in Autumn and recovered in March.

Besides the obvious damage to the steering lock the bike now also is severely rusted.

So bad that driving it definitely would be a road hazard.

Additionally to all the screws and brake disks the chain is completely covered in rust.

I would seriously be afraid of the chain riping at 60mph.

Right now the bike is not rideable in my opinion, even after the lock was fixed.

 

The insurance has agreed to fix the steering lock.

That's all.

Besides the fact that the rust clearly wasn't there yet, the bike seriously is a road hazard in the current condition.

 

I happen to have picture proof of the flawless condition of the bike one month before the theft.

The bike is 7 years old but again the condition was literally show room like just before the theft. No rust anywhere except the bottom of center stand which is a given.. as it has always been covered and taken care of well.

 

The thieves of course removed my cover and then dumped the bike out in the snow and rain for around 3-4 months.

 

It is completely clear that the rust has been a result of that.

 

Yet the insurance said they don't cover the rust rust damages, they only cover "damages that are a result of the theft". I am still waiting to hear back from them after my complaint, but I would like to get your opinion on how to proceed from here?

 

I have full coverage.

 

Another issue is that the repair is very expensive. The bike after 7 year isn't worth that much anymore and I did not want them to write it off. So for the theft repair estimate I had asked the mechanic of the shop to not include all the rust damages because it would have gone beyond half the value of the bike and they probably would have written it off I'm guessing. Which I don't want because I won't find this bike in such good condition again as I had kept it.

 

What would you do? What are my best options to get as much as possible repaired?

 

Thanks in advance for any input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rust on discs is superficial and will clean off within a day of using the bike.

All rusted screws can be replaced with stainless steel for very little.

 

Rusty chain is usually not a problem, again, unless corroded it will self clean within a day so a little lithium grease will do wonders.

If you are concerned about the chain snapping, it's not a great deal to change it and they don't cost much, unless you ride a powerful expensive bike.

 

So my advice is to get a quote for the rusty screws and chain and pass it to the insurance so you can start negotiating.

I'll say it shouldn't cost more than £100 assuming you don't ride one of the powerful expensive bikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The workshop did provide an estimate for the rust, the insurance just didn't approve it.

 

The mechanic quoted the rust repairs at a whopping 800£ including work hours.

That's for exchanging most of the screws and the chain.

They estimated £300 alone for exchanging the chain and sprockets.

 

The bike is on the more powerful side.

 

The insurance didn't even approve any lubing, nothing what so ever related to the rust. It seems completely ridiculous to me that they would send me back on the street with the chain in such a bad condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you reckon is the replacement cost for a bike in the same condition as yours when it was stolen – taking into account any extra work that you happened to have done recently. For instance if you had recently bought new parts or new tyres or anything then you should factor those in as well. Give us a value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance offered me 3800 just before the bike was recovered. I have seen one at a dealership in similar condition but with 30% more milage for the same price. Getting this bike again with for it's age low milage as mine is probably impossible though, at least here I haven't seen one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the rust will not alter the integrity of the parts so stop fretting about that.

What it may well do is act as an abrasive to other parts to removing it to give it a good clean is very sensible but you wont need a new one.

same goes with the screws, if they come out then they are fine, it will only be a problem to you if they have corroded into a different metal such as an alloy and you end up damaging the threaded holes getting the screws out.

 

I once cleaned a WW1 rifle in a big ultrasonic bath and then shot it without any further fettling.

about half of the battlefield came out in the bath solution (citriclene) but the rust was still superficial after 80 years.

 

I know it all depends on the ground conditions as to whether that is a likely thing to occur but what I am saying is that your bike wont fall to bits and the company telling you that it will be £300 for chain and sprockets is really pulling your chain and I am not surprised the insurers dont want to shell out.

 

they are not there to give you a new bike just make good your actual losses so you need to show a properly thought out schedule of loss rather than saying i want some new bits because these dont look nice any more. So, if the screws are knackered (you will tell as soon as you try to take one out) then a set of screws shoul dbe costed. As far as labour goes, will it really take 20 hours to do all of this?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though you aren't able to find one with the same low mileage at the same price, you should be able to get one or two people to give you written estimates of the value of such a bike if it appeared on the market. Do you think you can do that?

 

I agree with EB above that the insurers there to make good your actual losses – but that includes a bike with no rust, low mileage and basically a bike was identical to the one that you had lost.

 

What is the cost of putting your bike back into the position it was in before it was stolen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually care what they do to fix it, if they can just clean the screws and chain etc that's fine with me. I just want my "old" bike back, meaning I want it to be in great condition again. Whether that takes new parts or cleaning doesn't matter to me.

But am I supposed to check every screw now for damages? Isn't that the job of the workshop and therefore something the insurance should pay for? Even just checking the screws is something that takes effort and time.

(The bike is at the workshop now and I can't really access it even if I wanted to check every screw)

 

I agree the work hours they are charging are ridiculous. But what can I do about that?

They were originally charging 120£ to exchange two screws, two perfectly accessible screws, I'm not kidding.

A job that literally takes 5 minutes. I can give them 10 minutes for propping up the bike on the Centerstand if they wanted to include that. But it's pretty absurd either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw your comment, BankFodder.

 

I'm not sure I could get an evaluation of the bike value, where would you suggest to get that from? I'm relatively new to the UK.

 

The cost of putting the bike in its original condition at this workshop would probably be around 2200-2500£, to really fix every screw and bolt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they've already agreed that it was worth £3800 – and that was without you quibbling.

 

Why don't you get a quote for the complete restoration of the bike – to the condition it was in before it was stolen. Get two quotes. Make sure that you are completely satisfied with the quality of the work which will be done. That includes properly cleaning the frame and sandblasting any rust and repainting to the same standard as before. If it comes in at less than £3800 then I think you have a good chance of getting it done. If it comes in less than £3000 then I think that although it may take threats of legal action against the insurer, I don't see that there should be any problem.

 

So far as the insurers position that they don't cover for damage caused by rust, they are making up as they go along and you should ignore them. The fact is that it was left in that condition because of an act of theft and that is what you are insured for.

 

Get the quotes for a top-quality repair and then come back here. Two written quotes or even three written quotes detailing all the work which is needed – bolt by bolt. Don't forget that insurers don't make their money by paying out. They make their money by not paying out

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bankfodder on this. As long as you have evidence of pre theft condition, then the Insurers should cover the loss of putting you back in the same position as you were before the theft.

 

The loss value will be up to the market value, either restoring the bike to pre theft condition or paying rhe market value as a write off.

 

Local bike dealers will confirm market value and restoration costs. Bit of a pain getting this info, but has to be done if you want to pursue this.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bankfodder on this.

 

High praise indeed :whoo: !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go back to this point:

 

Yet the insurance said they don't cover the rust rust damages, they only cover "damages that are a result of the theft".

 

I don't think that statement is correct to start with. I can't be sure without seeing the whole policy wording but my guess is the claims handler has never heard of 'proximate cause'. Which doesn't surprise me, in 30 years of dealing with motor claims most front line claims handlers had a thin grasp of it even before the days of outsourced call centres!

 

You can look up 'proximate cause' online for legalistic explanations but the gist of it is that all damage that flows from an insured risk - ie theft in this case - is insured unless there has been an intervening event not related to the theft. So rust is excluded if you'd just left the bike uncovered in your front garden, but if the rust wasn't there before the theft (and you have evidence it wasn't) but is there now as a result of the thieves dumping it in a field I would argue that the cost of rectifying the rust is 'proximately caused' by the theft and so is insured. 'Proximate cause' arguments are technical but important and in this case I'd certainly be arguing the subsequent rust damage was insured because it was 'proximately caused' by theft.

 

Is the standard wording available on the insurer's website? If so could you post a link to it?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go back to this point:

 

 

 

I don't think that statement is correct to start with. I can't be sure without seeing the whole policy wording but my guess is the claims handler has never heard of 'proximate cause'. Which doesn't surprise me, in 30 years of dealing with motor claims most front line claims handlers had a thin grasp of it even before the days of outsourced call centres!

 

I understand the principle you are referring to very well – but in all my 40 or so years of being in the law, I have never heard of "proximate cause".

 

Thank you, it is brilliant to have some language to use when describing this. I can't say that I learn something new every day – but pretty frequently.!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the principle you are referring to very well – but in all my 40 or so years of being in the law, I have never heard of "proximate cause".

 

Thank you, it is brilliant to have some language to use when describing this. I can't say that I learn something new every day – but pretty frequently.!

 

This is how the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters teaches trainee loss adjusters about Proximate Cause (pp47 - 49)

 

http://www.cila.co.uk/cila/downloads/getting-qualified/certificate/files-2/205-chapter-8-proximate-cause/file

 

As insurance students we had to memorise the definition from Pawsey (1908) and reproduce it perfectly in just about every exam! I can still remember it now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OP could tell us who he's insured with we could look at the policy documents.

 

Looking at my own policy:

 

Section B - Fire and theft

We will pay for loss or damage as a result of theft,

attempted theft, fire, lightning or explosion to:

1. Your car.

 

then later down the page...

 

What is not covered under this section

11. Loss or damage caused by rust, corrosion, wear and

tear or any loss of value including following repair

 

Not clear what happens if my car is stolen, dumped and rusts to death...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OP could tell us who he's insured with we could look at the policy documents.

 

Looking at my own policy:

 

Section B - Fire and theft

We will pay for loss or damage as a result of theft,

attempted theft, fire, lightning or explosion to:

1. Your car.

 

then later down the page...

 

What is not covered under this section

11. Loss or damage caused by rust, corrosion, wear and

tear or any loss of value including following repair

 

Not clear what happens if my car is stolen, dumped and rusts to death...

 

I'd like to say that in this case "rust" refers to the root cause of the problem. In other words it can't be included as an insured peril. However, once an acceptable insured peril has occurred then I think that Ethel's proximate cause comes into play

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to say that in this case "rust" refers to the root cause of the problem. In other words it can't be included as an insured peril. However, once an acceptable insured peril has occurred then I think that Ethel's proximate cause comes into play

 

That was my thought too, just odd that they specifically seek to exclude rust damage in the theft section.

 

Mind you I've got an alfa romeo, if it does get stolen it'll probably fall to pieces before it gets too far...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought too, just odd that they specifically seek to exclude rust damage in the theft section.

 

Mind you I've got an alfa romeo, if it does get stolen it'll probably fall to pieces before it gets too far...

 

If a vehicle is stolen and then not found within say 2 months, I would argue that Insurers should have paid out for the market value of the vehicle, excepting that the vehicle may never be recovered. If the vehicle is subsequently found, then it is the property of the Insurers, because they bought it after paying for the total loss. The condition of the vehicle is then a problem for the Insurers.

 

Insurers should not be waiting months before paying out for a total loss following theft. It is pretty obvious that any vehicle might suffer significant further damage, if it is either just left in a field somewhere or is being used by either the thieves or others the vehicle has been passed on to.

 

This is quite important for proximate cause issue and why Insurers should not be leaving it too long before paying out for total loss following theft. Would Insurers argue that they should not pay out for damage caused by thieves, who had used a car as a rally car to drive around a field and then dumped it. The damage caused is all part of the original theft.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers should not be waiting months before paying out for a total loss following theft. It is pretty obvious that any vehicle might suffer significant further damage, if it is either just left in a field somewhere or is being used by either the thieves or others the vehicle has been passed on to.

 

That's why I asked the first question to the OP. Given the time since the theft it was surprising that they hadn't paid out already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...