Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Andy Darroch on February 10, 2012 at 17:15

I'm not really sure who you think you are impressing, but just because someone hit your bike (or car for that matter) doesn't mean that they have some sort of responsibility to collect or dispose of the salvage. Your bike = your salvage. If you want them to keep the salvage so that you can realise this value in your settlement that's fine, then you need to come to the party and drop it off for collection. But realise that the insurer is essentially doing you a favour by even offering this service, as legally they are under no obligation to do anything other than "here is your market value payout less estimated salvage value - goodbye".
People can harp on all they like about insurance companies this and that, but ultimately the insurer is ONLY responsible for their client's legal liability. If you want to get silver service in the event your bike is smashed up, then take out your own bike insurance. If you think that the legal system should consider liability differently in these situations, then campaign your local MP - but making the person on the other end of the phone have to put up with what is essentially a fairly arrogant demand is not really a suitable way to deal with anything.

Permalink Reply by Darren on February 10, 2012 at 19:33

I think you're terribly mistaken.

Permalink Reply by Michael Andy Darroch on February 11, 2012 at 7:44

Mistaken in regard to what specifically, and based on what?

Permalink Reply by Frank on February 11, 2012 at 10:57

You know Michael, I am sure there are folks on here that agree with you and Darren but most are afraid of ridicule, so many fence sitters that rather not offend or say it as it is!
Truth probably is that you see claims all day everyday and are caught in the middle.
I had my fair share of claims in my time and always feel hard done by but if I was to stand back so to speak and look at matters from a different perspective, I see it clearly.

It's just so often when a claim is made, all sorts of theories on how to possibly exploit a situation come to light where the fact of the matter is basic math.
Replacement value minus salvage value minus excess!

I once claimed for a $10k radio controlled helicopter I build, took me a while to prove such a beast actually exists but have clip on you tube, all receipts, pictures etc!
Thing is, I kept my cool, knew it would take a while for a specialized claim but the assessor was pretty good in hindsight.

So, Darren best bet is see what you get and if it's true replacement value, buy a new steed and get out there again, if you need a spare bike, I have one I be happy to lend, small
frame cinelli proxima!

Hope it all works out!

Permalink Reply by Darren on February 11, 2012 at 12:47

Thanks Frank.  I appreciate your words and the offer.  I did scrape together enough cash to pick up a new steed in early January.  This settlement is supposed to recover that.  Thanks again.

Permalink Reply by Darren on February 11, 2012 at 12:46

You're mistaken because the insurer initially told me as this was a total loss upon settlement they would require possession of the bike - I had no problem with this.  Salvage was never mentioned.

When the insurer accepted fault they then offered to sell me the bike for salvage.  This is to offset their liability - there's no favour here, it costs them money to dispose of the item, I'd be saving them money and effort.  I responded "maybe" to their offer, subject to whatever conditions they place on the salvage.  They later provided me with said conditions, and after consideration I decided not to pursue salvage.

As far as I'm concerned when they settle they own the bike (as they implied themselves).  If I had sued their client for the costs the same would be true, and if he wanted the bike I would have expected him to arrange pickup of the bike.  I'm not expecting silver service, just as they shouldn't expect silver service from me.

On the other matter of my motives for my post - I think the question in the original post has been somewhat lost.  I posted the conditions upon which the insurer placed on the salvage and asked if people thought it was worthwhile.  I wasn't trying to impress anyone.  My follow up post this week was to highlight how the insurer is treating me with respect to taking possession of the bike (i.e. wanting me to go out of my way to deliver their bike to them).  Again, not trying to impress anyone.  So while you're sitting their judging my motives and morals I strongly urge you to pull your head out of your darkest recess and stop drinking your employer's cool-aid for just a moment.

Permalink Reply by Patrick O'Kane on February 11, 2012 at 14:57

What would be the value of the salvageable parts? I'm not sure I would place much value on second hand parts that have come of a bike that has been written off. Certainly wouldn't even consider the bars and stem, would want the wheels checked and trued as a minimum. I reckon if you took your bike to the LBS it would cost them more to remove and test the parts than their resale value, why the insurance company can't see this is beyond me.

@ Darren, was your bike evaluated by your LBS after the crash. If so maybe they can give a value for salvage without having to take the bike back.

I wonder why the public generally has such a low opinion of insurance companies while those in the industry are so quick to defend it. Seems the PR message is getting lost somewhere between the fancy office blocks of Melb and Syd and us, the end user.

Permalink Reply by Michael Andy Darroch on February 11, 2012 at 15:02

Its nothing to do with employment or kool-aid - it's simply the law.
An insurer is contractually obligated to indemnify their client's legal liability. They can't make up their own rules and regulations. Similarly they are a business not a charity - so they will restrict their indemnity to the legal requirement also.

That said - I am sure that many people find their claims overly complicated by an insurer's processes and procedures - and this situation seems to have been made worse by the misunderstanding that has occurred whereby you were given the impression that the insurer had some kind of obligation over your salvage. Certainly if they told you that they would settle you the full value of the bike and take possession of the salvage, and then made an offer for you to keep the salvage for a fee, then it does lend itself to the theory that they appear to be accepting some kind of responsibility over the salvage.

If we strip away the specifics of this particular incident - and look at the basics of each party's entitlements;

The bike is your property. Their client's negligence has damaged your bike and they are contractually obligated to fiscally compensate you for the damage caused to said bicycle - however the damaged bike hasn't just disappeared - you still retain in your possession a bike (admittedly damaged) that would have some value.
Ultimately it is your obligation to substantiate your loss in the event of a legal action - so it is not the obligation of the insurance company to assess your bike and determine a salvage value - it is yours. Insurance companies will often offer to assess the value of a car or bike as it allows them control over the costs involved, however this is not a legal entitlement.
Whilst you still retain the possession of the bike - you are essentially still the beneficiary of any residual value in the salvage - so again, the insurance company is not obligated to include this value in their settlement to you as it would be 'double dipping' i.e. you get paid the salvage value by the insurance company and then sell the wreck on eBay and essentially receive the salvage value twice. Therefore if (again like I say, this is a general principle - and not specific to what you may have arranged with the insurance company you were dealing with) and insurance company offered to take possession of the salvage in exchange for settling you the full market value of the bike they are not legally compelled to be responsible for collection of the salvage, and are completely entitled to withhold this portion of the payment until the salvage is in their possession.

That is how it 'should' work - although by the sounds of things, the insurance company you are dealing with must be making life rather difficult - although rather than being a PITA, I was just trying to point out that digging your heels in and expecting both the money AND the insurance company to collect the salvage isn't going to solve the problem and just reinforces the stand off.

Permalink Reply by Michael Andy Darroch on February 11, 2012 at 15:07

Oh, and if it helps - from what I understand, if you are representing yourself and you incur report fees and/or assessment fees in relation to substantiating your loss, then you are entitled to claim these as a cost relating to the incident. This might help for those who are concerned that it will cost more to determine a value than it will to just give up.
So if your bike is damage and you seek the services of a professional loss adjuster to determine a fair and reasonable market value for the bike as well as a salvage value, then the cost of engaging this person is a cost you can pass on to the insurer. After all - it's not as though a court can expect everyone to be an expert on valuing property.

Permalink Reply by Michael Andy Darroch on February 11, 2012 at 15:08

Although engaging the services of a solicitor will not be covered unless you have first exhausted other avenues with the insurer as this would not be considered a fair and reasonable cost.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page