Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Insuance Question - Liability admitted, but what now?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by evader, Dec 4, 2009.

  1. Hi,

    This question comes on behalf of my mate. He's been on the TNMR quite a bit but isn't on the forums just yet.

    A few weeks ago, a car cut him off and he braked quite hard and avoided a collision. The car then indicated and pulled over to the left side of the road and stopped so my mate proceeded slowly to continue on. The car then without indication swung right to perform a U Turn. My mate and his bike ended up in the driver's side door but thankfully all involved are OK.

    The driver of the car has admitted liability and we have a letter from his insurance company stating this. My mate did not have insurance, so didn't make his own claim, just put forward his evidence to the driver's insurance co.

    What now? Do we get quotes and have the bike repaired? If it's a write off, does he get a new bike or a cheque for market value? It's a bit of an old bike.

    Will they replace his helmet and other gear that was damaged with the same equipment, or just same value (or a cheque)?

    If it's relevant, we're in Victoria.


  2. At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm sure ringing the insurance company would answer these questions. If the answers they give sound questionable, then I would imagine you should inquire with the insurance ombudsman (http://www.insuranceombudsman.com.au/)
  3. Your mate is on very solid ground if he's got liability admitted in writing. Regardless of whether he is insured himself, he is entitled to have ALL damage compensated to replacement value.
    I would be getting quotes for repairs to the bike, and prices for NEW helmet and gear. The culprit's insurer has the right to decide whether to pay market value for the bike or the cost of repair (whichever is lower).
    If they choose repair, they can also choose to pay the repairer directly if they prefer (sometimes they are able to negotiate a lower price than you can).
  4. It is letter of demand time. (Look in the politics forum for some examples)
    Basically a letter to the insurance company stating that your client has admitted liability (Attach evidence) and an itemised list of the incurred expenses.
    Bike replacement cost
    Dry cleaning of underwear
    And so on.
    They may quibble over the amount but it is unlikely unless his demands are “unreasonable”
    So your mate has to go get some prices for replacing the bike (Remember the stamp duty cost)
  5. Hardly.

    Is there a claim number on the letter from the insurance company?
    If not, ring and ask them for the claim number.

    You take your bike and the claim number to your preferred repairer for a quote and they sort it out with the insurance mob.
  6. Regardless of the at fault issue, this is the perfect example why U-turns should be illegal, unless signposted at selected intersections.
  7. take the bike to the bike shop you want to repair it. give them a copy of the insurance letter and let them deal with it. did this with my wifes bike when she got rear ended. replacing your gear is a bit different but the bike shop might help there too.

    ps we went to mick hone in box hill
  8. rather, it's the perfect example of why people should look before they do them.

    Lets take NSW as a test case for your scenario. Taken from RTA website:
    However, they have judged that u-turns are safe where the road has a broken centreline or no centreline at all.
    Sooo, if we can only perform a u-turn at selected intersections which don't exist, where then can we perform one?
  9. That much is a given. However, as it all too often does not happen, then wouldn't it be easier and more effective to simply ban them?

    As for the rest of your post relating to NSW, it makes a mockery of Tim Pallas's claim that the new road rules that Vic enacted a couple of weeks ago are to "bring us into line with the rest of Australia".

    Thing is, here in Vic, U-turns are permitted unless signposted to the contrary. In NSW, they're prohibited unless signposted to the contrary.

    It's bullshit.

    Either adopt the ARRs in their entirety or do away with the NTC, save us a shitload in taxpayers' money (maybe put it to use building better roads and other infrastructure) and let the states do their own thing.
  10. but ban them where? at intersections or suburban backstreets? On main roads I agree with you, u-turns can be dangerous if performed badly. But if it is your average backstreet, i think its overkill and an all-round dumb idea. "Ok, I can't do a u-turn, so I will do a three-point turn instead." They might do a three point turn for a day or two before reverting to a simple u-turn, as police have better things to do than watch all backstreets for evil hoons doing u-turns. I did my car p's test down in bega as we were on holidays there at the time. As part of the test we are supposed to show we can compentently do a three point turn. The road the instructor got me to do it on was as wide as a road train is long, and I had to physically try to do a three point turn rather than a u-turn, the road was that wide.

    Look, if it was a matter of encouraging road safety and awareness through a new rule/law I would back you 100%, but I just feel that it is pampering the idiots rather than making the road safer. If a user will have an accident doing a u-turn than chances are they will also have an accident doing something else just as stupid.
  11. Well thanks for all the replies. I could have asked the insurance company as someone mentioned, but I just wanted to check what they say versus netrider :)

    He wants to keep the bike, he got it at a good price and has done some work to it, so we got a repairs quote from a bike shop, so I think he'll just get a cheque.