Bike accident and insurance stuff

[sml]

Long story short, someone in a tin box ran me over on my bike. Their insurance is paying for everything related to the bike and the gear I was wearing. Obviously I understand that the bike would be accessed based on market value or what they call ACV (actual cash value = Replacement cost - depreciation). But, they're accessing the damaged jacket, helmet, pants, boots using ACV too... My problem is that I can probably buy a replacement bike equal to the same one I had with the ACV that they offered me, but there's no way that I am going to go out and buy replacement gear at the fraction amount of money that they offered. Were they expecting that I go out and buy used gear??? Doesn't really make sense to me. ie) Lets say a helmet is $1000 brand new and I've had it for 5 years and they claim that it has a typical life span of 10 years, so they're going to give me $500 assuming 50% depreciation. But the problem is that I ain't going to find a new helmet of like quality for $500 and I ain't going to go out and buy a used helmet for $500 either... To me, it makes more sense that for certain things, the new replacement cost value should be used. What do you guys think? Has anyone claimed bike gear before from an insurance company?

[RC-Cola]

I'm surprised by this as you have a claim that your equipment needs to be replaced as new. I'd suggest providing receipt if possible or at least get a quote from a dealer on replacing your equipment (or equivalent).

BTW, if it's the other guys insurance you don't have to take the first offer they give you, you can fight it to get it higher. Talk to your own insurance company to help you out (that's what they are there for)!

[Supa Dexta]

Tricky situation with gear being that old...

I mean you can't expect new replacement value of a 5 yr old bike, can you of gear?

[leftwing]

Think of it this way:

If your helmet has a useful life of 10 years, and you've used it for 5 now, its depreciated 50%, or half it's life. Essentially it is only worth half of what it is worth new if you depreciate it in a straight line method. Why do you deserve a brand new helmet when the person wrecked your 5 year old helmet? She should only owe you what your helmet was worth at the time it was wrecked.

Seems fair to me...

[Go4Long]

I would PM masked bandit on here...he's going to be able to provide you more insight than anyone else around here.

[sml]

First off, I'm not trying to rip the insurance company off, I'm just trying to get what's fair. Secondly, I have dealt with insurance companies many times over my life before so this is not my first gig. Thirdly, the bike was written off and I got what I considered a fair market value for it which is nowhere near what I paid for it new and I'm ok with that. What I'm NOT ok with is settling with the depreciated cost of the gear because I realized that this accident will cost me out of pocket money. So, in order to get me back to the state I was in before the accident, property damage wise, I would have to spend money to buy a bunch of new gear because you cannot expect me to go out and buy used pants, boots, jacket, and helmet.

So here's another example: I bought a pair of riding pants for $100 a year ago, the insurance claims that the useful life of a pair of pants is two years, so it claims that it's value has depreciated 50% over it's useful life, so they're giving me $50 to replace those pants. To me, the useful life of a pair of riding pants is when my gut out grows it! I guess what I'm trying to get at is who is to determine the real "useful" life of an item? To me, I had a perfectly working pair of pants that I could theoretically wear for the next 10 years but now I'm forced to take out another $50 to replace it. Yes, I am getting a new pair of pants but it's $50 that I didn't have to or wanted to spend if it wasn't for the accident. Same goes for my riding jacket, boots, helmet... I mean at the end of the day, it's not a lot of money but it's the principle of it.

[tom_9109]

Its no different than when they pay for a car. They'll only pay for what the car is worth, not what its going to cost you to replace it with new.

Maybe try to negotiate the % of depreciation with them?

[ercchry]

i would just go buy new gear and give them the receipts

you tell THEM what you will settle for...

[Go4Long]

I believe there's different levels of insurance coverage (this is going off the top of my head here, hence why I said to PM MaskedBandit), one that will reimburse for ACV, and one that reimburses for replacement cost. When I had my wreck I got full replacement value on my bike (more than I paid for it), my Dainese Jacket, boots, pants, helmet, gloves...the check they wrote for my gear was a couple grand.

[revelations]

My experience with ICBC (in BC) was that they did cover the cost of a NEW lid, but my shoes and clothes that were destroyed in the crash (was hit by car) were only partially covered.

According to my adjuster, the case would have been different had I simply "rhubarbed" the bike into a ditch.... not sure if my gear would have been covered or not

[tom_9109]

Originally posted by ercchry
i would just go buy new gear and give them the receipts

you tell THEM what you will settle for...

Ha, now here's an interesting concept. Tell a professional that knows exactly what they'd be bound to pay by law that its XXX dollars or nothing. I think we can figure out what would happen next.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by tom_9109


Ha, now here's an interesting concept. Tell a professional that knows exactly what they'd be bound to pay by law that its XXX dollars or nothing. I think we can figure out what would happen next.

there is a law for insurance payouts?

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by ercchry


there is a law for insurance payouts?

Contract law

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Go4Long


Contract law

sure, if it was his insurance company that was paying him out. but when he was not at fault and has to deal with the other person's insurance you can dictate to them what will make you whole again. its the adjusters job to pay you as little as possible. you dont have to settle for it

[tom_9109]

Originally posted by ercchry


sure, if it was his insurance company that was paying him out. but when he was not at fault and has to deal with the other person's insurance you can dictate to them what will make you whole again. its the adjusters job to pay you as little as possible. you dont have to settle for it

It is not the adjusters job to pay you as little as possible. It is the adjusters job to pay you the right amount for the right things. No more, no less.

You are correct though. The OP doesn't have to settle for it.

He can suggest the amount he feels is correct however the adjuster does not have to agree with him and in reality no court would say he was entitled to the new price.

Originally posted by ercchry


there is a law for insurance payouts?

Insurance companies are bound in several ways.

1. The Insurance Act of Alberta

2. Contract law (When dealing with your insurance company)

3. Tort (When dealing with someone elses insurance company.

Insurance people aren't just blindly and arbitrarily trying to pay less than they should. The are trying to offer the amount that is correct for the loss incurred.

Then again, maybe *certain* companies do try to fuck people over but the premise behind the entire industry is to not do that.