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.

VIC Is fire and theft worth it?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Tam0h, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. So after getting insurance quotes. I found out fire and theft will cost me an extra 1k a year. Since itll be in a locked garage with a lock on it i dont really think its worth paying over half my bikes worth for a weekend ride.. Still not too sure though. Could you guys help me make up my mind? Cheers.

  2. Try different insurers to see if the fire and theft quote is better.

    For me fire and theft is worth not having to worry. I leave my bike wherever I like knowing I won't lose out. I couldn't stand fussing over locks and that other crap.

    That said I wouldn't pay $1000 more on a $2000 bike that's stupid if you can't do any better with other companies I reckon your better off taking the risk. If it doesn't get stolen within two years then your ahead.
  3. If bike is worth $2k, and additional $1k for fire and theft (then excess) will not be an economical prospect.
  4. Plus, what will be the excess if you have to make a claim; you could end up paying the value of the bike between premium and excess?
    Get Third Party Property insurance; you don't want to be in debt for the next four decades if you rear-end a Ferrari......
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Found something weird when doing my car insurance, seems the older the car gets the more expensive comprehensive Insurance gets as older parts start costing more and are harder to find. And for my car fire and theft was close to the same as full comprehensive price wise. They get you coming and going,bloody Insurance companies. I worked for one for a few years,they have more money that god.
  6. Given your bike is worth $2000 I wouldn't be paying $1000 for insurance (regardless of coverage).

    For me personally I've worked in the theory that if it will cost me more than a months wages to replace a vehicle it gets full comprehensive insurance, otherwise it gets either fire and theft or just 3rd party property if it's an old junker.

    Having said that I'm and older person with a good driving record and live in the country, so insurance isn't really all that expensive for me anyway. In fact I don't think I've ever paid more than $700 for full comprehensive.
  7. Jeez mate I wouldn't be paying that much, sounds uber-high, ring around and get some other quotes. I would only insure a $2k bike for 3rd party only. I pay a little over $300 fully comp for my 750 so wow.....
  8. That's a bit weird considering all the wrecker parts that ought to be around. I'd suggest the real reason might be more to do with older cars being much easier to steal and sell the parts.
  9. Dont know, seems there are always reasons to up the cost
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. I remember years ago, maybe 1994, I had a 1980 Lancer (Chrysler) hatch. The company I had the CTP with (NZI) sent me a letter telling me they would no longer offer me a CTP due to the age of the car.
  11. As hornet said - 3rd party is worth considering more than fire and theft. Your bike's not worth much, but other people's property sure is.
    • Agree Agree x 1