Bike comes off bike rack and injures someone. Insured?

Miggins

I've just spoken to my car insurance company and they told me that, basically, when the bike is on the rack it isn't covered by them in any way. So if it comes off the rack whilst driving or as a result of an accident and then injures someone or worse, I'm not covered.

So I phoned my bike insurance company. They said that the insurance would cover damage caused by the bike to someone's property, but does not cover injury/death to a pedestrian/other driver etc.

That's a bit of a worry. Although the bike is unlikely to fall off the rack whilst I'm driving, what if there's an accident? I'm sure the bike could easily become detached and would become a lethal, bike-shaped missile.

Anyone know where I can get insurance to cover this?

See MatelotFreddy's thread "An expensive drive home...":

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/forums/vie ... 8#16450068

BigShot

Might be worth contacting those two companies and asking how much extra they'd charge to extend the cover accordingly. Might not be too bad.

The possibility of ghost-rides have always made me nervous when it comes to bikes on a rack (and I used to carry them like that a hell of a lot) but I'd never even considered the insurance issues.

Let us know if you've already tried that or if you have any luck on that front.

Miggins

It turns out that getting this covered isn't as problematic as I thought it would be. I spoke to another car insurance company who said that they will/do insure against the above at no extra cost; it's not even an add-on. Check with your insurer. It's not something you want to find out about when it's too late.

BigShot

Any luck getting your current insurer to cover it? It's good to know it can be covered if need be, better still at no extra cost, but if you're already on a policy can it be added?

Or are you between policies at the mo'?

Miggins

I'm between policies; I'm due to renew in a few days so when I said above that "I've just spoken to my car insurance company", I was actually referring to the new insurer. However, when I phoned back (after already taking out their insurance) to confirm whether or not I would be covered for the above, they said they couldn't do it and they couldn't add it on with an extra charge/increased premium either. So I'm no longer going with them which is a shame because they offered what would have been a great policy at the best price. It looks like I'll be staying with the insurance company I'm already with. They're 45 quid more but still the next best quote and I can't risk not being insured against the bike getting airborne without me on it. It seems that although bike racks/bikes or injuries/death to third parties resulting from those are not specifically mentioned, there is a section that covers these things. This I have confirmed with the insurer. I made sure I was very clear about what I need insurance against. Obviously it's not always about the cheapest policy, it's what's included that really matters.

BigShot

Dead right about not always the cheapest that you want.
It seems crazy that the new company wouldn't even do it as an add on. I thought they would insure against just about anything if you paid them enough. Nuts.

I'm sure it's not unusual for things not specifically mentioned to be covered, but I always take what an insurance company says as hot air unless it's backed up in the policy. Are you happy that the other section does actually cover the bike/rack issue?
As in... if they wanted to get out of paying under that part, could they?

I ask because my main area of experience with buying insurance is travel, particularly snowboarding. Most policies insure you for "off-piste" which is great until you read it and realise that unless you're with a guide and there's no snow on the mountain, as soon as you go outside the piste markers you're not covered.
("Off-piste, with a guide and not in an area with an avalanche risk." Nobody rides with a guide all the time and snow=avalanche risk)

Weasel clauses like that make me very wary.

Anything like that in that section?

(For completeness of the post, I get the travel insurance from the British Mountaineering Council - they cover "off piste" without any weasel clauses at all. Not the cheapest but by far the most useful cover.)

Miggins

BigShot wrote:

Are you happy that the other section does actually cover the bike/rack issue?
As in... if they wanted to get out of paying under that part, could they?

I'm happy enough with what the guy on the phone said, "...the phone call's recorded, I've made a note in the system about your specific request, make a note of the time and date of this call, etc." but I will be asking them to point out the section to which they are referring when I renew so I can read it myself and make sure it's not open to some dodgy interpretation. Just in case

BigShot

Sounds good.
Just remember to read it while imagining you're the kind of soulless person who's job it is to find ways of refusing to pay out on claims that any reasonable person would say were dead certs. :P

Miggins

Good advice. I'll update this thread when I renew.

Anonymous

In the case of it just coming off (not in an accident), just make sure the bike is firmly secure. If it comes off then there are only two possible reasons and neither is an accident.

1. You haven't secured it properly, or
2. There is a defect in the bike rack

The latter would be a case of taking the manufacturer to court.

Either way one of those injury lawyers will get involved somewhere and profit.

If you're not confident about the rack, don't use it.

In an accident though, even a bike inside the car could fly out and kill someone, or even kill the driver or passenger inside. One for the lawyers to argue about really, but to be honest my last concern if someone is killed is what the financial cost will be.

Miggins

Thanks deadkenny. The rack I'm using is solid. Before I drive I always grasp the rack and pull it back and forth to see if it slips at all. It doesn't budge, the car just rocks. Also, I always check that all fastening are done up tightly and then grasp the bike and try to move that also. Same thing; car rocks. So I have every confidence in the rack whilst driving and the chances of it or the bikes coming off are almost non-existent whilst driving. However, what I don't know is if the racks or the rack fastenings are tested to see if they remain secure and/or keep the bike secure should there be an accident (collision or swerving to avoid a collision etc.)

Like you, my last concern if someone was killed would be the financial implications, but still it's something that you want covered, I'm sure you'll agree. Life would be bad enough knowing that you've wiped someone out even if it wasn't your fault, but it would be even worse if you end up losing your house over it too.

Thanks for your comments. Something for us all to consider.

BigShot

On the secured to the rack thing... I always lock the bike(s) to the rack before setting off. Absolutely no chance of a ghost-ride that doesn't involve the rack going with it in that case.

It also prevents the far more likely scenario of a scrote robbing a bike off the rack while you go in to pay for petrol or some such scenario.

Anonymous

BigShot wrote:

It also prevents the far more likely scenario of a scrote robbing a bike off the rack while you go in to pay for petrol or some such scenario.

So long as they haven't got a knife

BigShot

Well, if they want to cut the straps and carry the entire collection of rack and bike(s) away with them... yea.

It makes it harder for them to hop on and ride off if the rack is still locked to the frame though.

cavegiant

Miggins wrote:

BigShot wrote:

Are you happy that the other section does actually cover the bike/rack issue?
As in... if they wanted to get out of paying under that part, could they?

I'm happy enough with what the guy on the phone said, "...the phone call's recorded, I've made a note in the system about your specific request, make a note of the time and date of this call, etc." but I will be asking them to point out the section to which they are referring when I renew so I can read it myself and make sure it's not open to some dodgy interpretation. Just in case

As long as they tell you it is covered in the call, it does not matter what the policy wording says. Laws of agency ties them in.

Miggins

BigShot wrote:

On the secured to the rack thing... I always lock the bike(s) to the rack before setting off. Absolutely no chance of a ghost-ride that doesn't involve the rack going with it in that case.

It also prevents the far more likely scenario of a scrote robbing a bike off the rack while you go in to pay for petrol or some such scenario.

Nice idea. And the straps can't be cut because there aren't any. It's a metal framed Thule clip-on high jobby.

cavegiant wrote:

As long as they tell you it is covered in the call, it does not matter what the policy wording says. Laws of agency ties them in.

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks Cavegiant.

I said I'd update when I renew the car insurance. Got a couple of days yet before it expires and I had a monster ride today so haven't had time for admin.

Anonymous

One thought. If it's on a roof rack and you clip a tree or bridge, bike goes flying off and hits someone, I'd suspect you'd be liable. Unless you can try and claim against the council (for a tree), but probably it's down to you to be aware of the height requirements.

Miggins

UPDATE:

I've renewed the car insurance now and asked them to confirm again that I'd be insured if the bike comes off the rack. They said that if there was an accident and the bike came off then I'd be insured. I asked where this is written so I could read it for myself and was referred to their Liability section where it says:

"We will cover you for all all the amounts which you may be legally liable to pay if you have an accident in your car and:

Someone else is killed or injured; or
Someone else's property is damaged.

This cover cover also applies to any accident involving a trailer or broken down vehicle which you are towing".

So I asked whether I'd be insured if the bike came off without there being an accident (ie. just driving along). I was told that that would be classed as an accident. Depends how they define "Accident". The Oxford dictionary defines it as:

" an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury " or

" a crash involving road or other vehicles "

Which is the definition they would use? They did tell me on the phone, twice, that I'd be insured so I suppose I'll have to accept it but I still think it could be argued as it doesn't mention bike-racks specifically in their liability section.

Am I just splitting hairs?

But I need insurance for my car so this is about as good as it gets. I think.

Anonymous

The latter case of it coming off just driving along would likely not be a problem because all they'd do is sue the manufacturer or the rack or the car if either of those are at fault.

What would happen if you went over a pot hole and it came off, I don't know. Maybe you could argue the rack was not designed well, or it could be the council at fault (good luck with that!).

Miggins

deadkenny wrote:

What would happen if you went over a pot hole and it came off...

According to the insurance company, that would be an accident and so I'd be covered. I'd still like to see something written down with bike-rack specifically mentioned on it, though.Anyway, it's highly unlikely that the bike will become detached unless there's a collision. And for that I know I'm insured. So I'm happy. Finally!

Miggins

See MatelotFreddy's thread "An expensive drive home...":

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/forums/vie ... 8#16450068