I may be the last one in Adelaide to realise this, but following a minor bingle with a car last week that caused me to call my insurance company re the repairs, I was advised that my policy no longer covers damage whilst my bike is 'in use' (ie., OK for theft or if it was damaged whilst NOT in use). They had clearly changed this cover since I last needed this support (Feb 2009). One might speculate that the interstate disasters in recent years (acknowledging their loss was FAR greater than mine) may have prompted these companies to minimise future liabilities through tampering with their policies. So my advice to AC members who think that the bike is insured for accidental damage, please check your current policy exclusion! I am now getting quote from that Cycle Cover Gold mob (http://www.cyclecover.com.au). Does anyone recommend them?
That is really good information and advice, Michael, I may need to draw on this as my on-going 'dispute' with CUNA re definition of sporting equipment in their PDS rolls on, now at the second level, the one prior to the Ombudsman. I reckon I will be heading there soon too. Cheers! ;-)
Many thanks for your reading of this CUNA PDS. I am currently at the second level of complaints, so with their IDR at present, so next step is the ombudsman, as you indicate. I am certainly basing my argument on the ambiguity of definitions in their PDS, and quoting other PDS's in the industry to illustrate that I am not on some fanciful tangent with the argument that bicycles can indeed be defined differently to sporting equipment, as well as my experience with the wrong advice initially given by CGU phone staff and underwriter that later resulted in an apology and retraction. I will post the final result, for better or for worse! THANKS again for your valued words, Ray.
Sorry about the long delay, but I have been corresponding regularly with the internal dispute resolution (IDR) folks at CUNA, actually very helpful. Having lodged my 'case', the IDR officer actually went back to the first level of complaints underwriters who didn't budge. So they had their IDR committee meeting on Friday and have advised that they will allow my claim on the grounds that I was using the bike for commuting at the time of the accident, so considered it not a sporting usage. They stuck to their PDS definitions of 'sporting good in use' as applying to bikes, so did not concede to me that it was wrong or ambiguous. I must confess that I was not expecting that outcome. Anyway, I am happy that I got what I believe to be a fair and reasonable result and have thanked the IDR officer who managed it.
I also learned recently that there has been other cases where the insurer has only committed to repair cracked carbon, rather than replace it. This has implications for manufacturer's warranty (ie., void!). I have heard of a court case on this point that was settled in favour of the insured, ie., the the insurer should replace and not just repair cracked carbon frames.
The morals of the story, again: read your PDS carefully, seek clarification if you think it is ambiguous, get that in writing not just what you may be told on the phone (or at least ask for the call to be noted and recorded on your policy), and be prepared to push beyond what the folks at the call centre and even underwriters might say on a particular matter. THANKS all for this discussion, Ray.
Great to hear the good news.
On the flip side, it would have been very interesting to see how FOS would have determined had it gone all the way.
Ray, thanks for keeping us updated. The process should have been simpler. How many would have given up and not received payment when cyclist was paying for insurance? Consider if cyclist seriously injured or on-going physio appointments.
I have added a link to your post on the AC group Look For Cyclists under topic Insurance at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/lookforcyclists/forum/topics/...