Insurance Claim Advice

MrKnifey

MrKnifey

MrKnifey

Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2008
Posts
3,532
Location
Nelson, South Wales
Hi all, not sure if this is best place to ask, but basically I have damaged my own bike when carrying out maintenance on it and damaged the frame and fork to the point they need replacing. I added the bike to my home insurance and was under the impression it pretty much covers everything from damage when riding right through to theft.

However they have just called me back to tell me it only covers me for theft/damage when actually riding the bike and to refer to the policy wording!

The below is from my policy wording, I argued it isnt very clear at all and to me reads as if it covers me as it was caused by unintentional damage by myself.

So question is, am I buggered?

uoc0HNv.jpg
 
Sounds like a sudden unintended act by you. What have you managed to do and is it not cheaper to either repair the forks professionally or source some replacements?

P.s. you donkey.

P.p.s. the frame too?! Wtf did you do you maniac?
 
I think the line "while used riding recreationally" is pretty clear.

You were not riding it so you're not coverd. I doubt you will get anywhere arguing it :(

/Salsa
 
Dis86 said:
Sounds like a sudden unintended act by you. What have you managed to do and is it not cheaper to either repair the forks professionally or source some replacements?

P.s. you donkey.

P.p.s. the frame too?! Wtf did you do you maniac?
Click to expand...

Think he tried to nuke it from orbit to be sure...it was fixed.
 
Salsa said:
I think the line "while used riding recreationally" is pretty clear.

You were not riding it so you're not coverd. I doubt you will get anywhere arguing it :(

/Salsa
Click to expand...

Well it depends. The wording is crap because they say being used recreationally AND. What's not clear is if the and means both conditions must be met or if they're additional conditions.

I went to the park and the seaside. Doesn't mean the park was at the seaside.
 
Dis86 said:
Yes but you can't ride whilst it's locked up and stolen so their first bullet contradicts that statement.
Click to expand...

Quite.

It says 'and'...so it definitely reads as 'while riding and if stolen and if caused by a sudden and unintentional act by you'

Whether being ham fisted while trying to do some maintenance is covered by 'a sudden and unintentional act' is what they will argue I guess....but it's worth an argument :p
 
First line refusal, just ask for advice on how to refer it upwards for review or ombudsman. It's a sad fact that you have to fight for a considerable length of time to get anywhere with insurance.
 
The wording is not crap, it's pretty clear. Sudden and unintentional act, a crash essentially.

Check the exclusions. There will likely be one that excludes damage whilst the bike is being worked on.
 
Dis86 said:
Yip. Shock as insurance company hide behind a poorly written term/condition.
Click to expand...

McGray said:
The wording is not crap, it's pretty clear. Sudden and unintentional act, a crash essentially.

Check the exclusions. There will likely be one that excludes damage whilst the bike is being worked on.
Click to expand...

Actually Mcgray is right. The 'and' just means the following bullet points are sub clauses to the statement of 'being used recreationally', otherwise it would be 'or'. I didn't read it that way to start with

Ie: you do have a bike stolen using it recreationally as that's when it's chained up in public places (hence the chain and immoveable object clause) and the sudden and unintentional is a crash.

If it was stolen from home it would be covered anyway. Though home insurance can cover accidental damage on contents, does this not extend to extra items like bikes?
 
Freakbro said:
Actually Mcgray is right. The 'and' just means the following bullet points are sub clauses to the statement of 'being used recreationally', otherwise it would be 'or'. I didn't read it that way to start with

Ie: you do have a bike stolen using it recreationally as that's when it's chained up in public places (hence the chain and immoveable object clause) and the sudden and unintentional is a crash.

If it was stolen from home it would be covered anyway. Though home insurance can cover accidental damage on contents, does this not extend to extra items like bikes?
Click to expand...

My home insurance doesn't include bikes. They're covered under an additional point that you have to pay for even on top of the standard additional bike cover! (Named items above 1k in the home).
 
Dis86 said:
My home insurance doesn't include bikes. They're covered under an additional point that you have to pay for even on top of the standard additional bike cover! (Named items above 1k in the home).
Click to expand...

Then I imagine that's why they won't be covered by the accidental damage part of home ins.

Sorry OP, looks like an expensive mistake :(
 
Freakbro said:
Then I imagine that's why they won't be covered by the accidental damage part of home ins.

Sorry OP, looks like an expensive mistake :(
Click to expand...

It really depends on exclusions. Mine is specifically listed in the cycle cover section but the OP doesn't seem to have that exclusion...at least not there.
 
Even if the OP wasn't riding it, wouldn't this be classed as accidental damage?

My laptop had water damage (spillage) which is classed as accidental damage and not covered by warranty. Yeah I'm a donkey too :p The house insurers took it off me. I paid the £100 excess as per policy and I was given a voucher to buy a replacement laptop to the same spec as before.
 
Dis86 said:
Sounds like a sudden unintended act by you. What have you managed to do and is it not cheaper to either repair the forks professionally or source some replacements?

P.s. you donkey.

P.p.s. the frame too?! Wtf did you do you maniac?
Click to expand...


I dont think you could call a botched repair job sudden and unintended as its a planned activity that is probbaly advised against by the manufacture (always take to a qualified yards yadda"

Just say you crashed it op lol
 
Presumably the “riding recreationally” is in there so they don’t cover you if you’re riding competitively. It doesn’t look like it means you have to be riding to be covered.

Then again, why care about the specifics. They know most people aren’t going to go to an ombudsman if they just say “nope, not covered”.
 
How the hell do you need a fork and frame replacement from "doing some maintenance on it" ??

Who says you need to replace both parts?? Have you got a professional report/opinion to confirm you need both parts replaced ??

No chance any insurance company will pay out for someone effectively wanting a new bike (a frame and forks is effectively a new bike) - which was "damaged" whilst you were working on it, which clearly shows that you were not capable/competent to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom