Insurance company low payout

tetm

Quick question to anyone in the know, or with experience

My girlfriend's bike was stolen at the beginning of January from outside her office, where it was locked to an immovable object with a gold secure lock. Usual things done, police report, CCTV gained, insurance company phoned immediately etc.

She is insured with Protect Your Bubble who have been an absolute shower of uselessness. 9 weeks down the line and she has just been offered £999 to spend at a bike shop of their choice. It says in the policy that they have the right to choose the bike shop you get the replacement from, so that's fine. HOWEVER, her bike was insured for £1200 as that's what it was bought for. It was a 2012 Scott Contessa Speedster 15 - only the 2013 model is a lower value at £999, this is due to it having a slightly lower spec. They bike shop that PYB have chosen is Wheelies, who won't have the new model in until the end of May.

The insurance company have offered her £999 to spend on any bike she likes - there is the Merida Ride Lite Juliet 94 for this price, but is of a lower spec than the original Scott.

Is it wrong that they won't honour the £1200 insured value and give her the Merida for £999 and £201 to spend on parts to upgrade it to a similar level?

TL;DR? Bike insured for £1200, stolen, insurance company pay out £999. How is this right?

pangolin

Specs look almost identical to me, what's lower on the 2013 model? All I can see different is the saddle and tyres.

Don't know about your main question I'm afraid. I suppose it will depend on the wording in the policy, and whether it just states they have to replace with this years model.

phy2sll2

Not right unless you had an excess to pay?

mudcow007

have the offered less because of the bike slightly depreciating?

tetm

mudcow007 wrote:

have the offered less because of the bike slightly depreciating?

The policy only mentions depreciation after 3 years, the bike was only 4 months old.

@Pangolin - the new one seems to have been upspecced now, previously it was listed with Tiagra mechs and a non-series chainset and different wheels. This may be why it's not available until the end of May.

The crux is, she's paid the remaining value of her policy off which is obvioulsy the cost of insuring a more expensive bike - surely they have to honour this and allow her to at least replace the pedals and lock?

danlikesbikes

tetm wrote:

Quick question to anyone in the know, or with experience

My girlfriend's bike was stolen at the beginning of January from outside her office, where it was locked to an immovable object with a gold secure lock. Usual things done, police report, CCTV gained, insurance company phoned immediately etc.

She is insured with Protect Your Bubble who have been an absolute shower of uselessness. 9 weeks down the line and she has just been offered £999 to spend at a bike shop of their choice. It says in the policy that they have the right to choose the bike shop you get the replacement from, so that's fine. HOWEVER, her bike was insured for £1200 as that's what it was bought for. It was a 2012 Scott Contessa Speedster 15 - only the 2013 model is a lower value at £999, this is due to it having a slightly lower spec. They bike shop that PYB have chosen is Wheelies, who won't have the new model in until the end of May.

The insurance company have offered her £999 to spend on any bike she likes - there is the Merida Ride Lite Juliet 94 for this price, but is of a lower spec than the original Scott.

Is it wrong that they won't honour the £1200 insured value and give her the Merida for £999 and £201 to spend on parts to upgrade it to a similar level?

TL;DR? Bike insured for £1200, stolen, insurance company pay out £999. How is this right?

Don't want to sound blunt but I am going to break it down as best I can & I'm not trying to offend you.

In answer to your question its twofold really;

1) was the bike insured on an agreed value basis of £1,200? Which you can do with some bike insurers and not with others. If so then you are right to complain and expect them to honour the basis of cover your girlfriend purchased.

2) if the bike was insured on an new for old basis (often also called like for like) & the new model they are working from is now cheaper then you have no room to move as they are paying for a replacement which is the equivalent model & the cover that you purchased.

Can't seem to get a copy of the policy wording from their website but if it is on this basis http://uk.protectyourbubble.com/bicycle-insurance/ then I guess you have little room to argue as it suggests that cover is on a new for old basis not an agreed basis. Happy for you to correct me if you have arranged cover on a guaranteed value basis.

I deal with financial services complaints as part of my day job so am happy to help in any way I can.

pangolin

From their policy T&C's

What is Not Covered
 Unexplained Theft
 Any tyres, or removable parts, unless the Bicycle is stolen at the same time
 Theft when entrusted, loaned or hired out by You to any other person, other than a member of Your Family.

I would say the pedals should be covered based on the above. But the bike doesn't come with any, so it's a bit of a grey area. Personally I wouldn't expect the lock to be covered.

It's a bit crap that it's not available until May though. They do mention they will pay for up to 10 days bike rental while awaiting your new bike! I would try and get that out of them if they don't play nicely.

tetm

@Danlikesbikes - perfect, just needed to be told from someone in the know. That makes total sense and is quite obvious on their website, thank you for highlighting it.

@Pangolin - the time thing is the main thing that's been a pain as from when it was stolen until about a week ago the same 2012 model was still available and they were trying to shift them, sadly as PYB have taken so long about this they're no longer about. Unfortunately you can read pages and pages of terrible reviews online about their slow service, it's been a complete pain for her - waiting days and days when they say they will call back "after lunch". I think the gf to PYB call ratio sits at about 50:3, which is pretty shocking.

Naturally she's going nuts having not been out riding and commuting for the last two months, and having to wait until the end of may for a replacement is beginning to look a little out of the question! Unfortunately it's a cycle to work scheme bike and so sourcing and flogging a replacement isn't really an option.

First.Aspect

You are going to have to dig into the small print I'm afraid. Any advice given without sight of it is pretty worthless.

tetm

Danlikesbikes wrote:

2) if the bike was insured on an new for old basis (often also called like for like) & the new model they are working from is now cheaper then you have no room to move as they are paying for a replacement which is the equivalent model & the cover that you purchased.

So it seems like this is the case, and now that Scott appear to have upped the spec this may not be so relevant, however, if the 2013 bike with the same name was both cheaper and with a lower spec what would be the case then? As Pangolin pointed out the only differences now are subtle - different stem, seat post, saddle and tyres - are these enough for it to no longer be "like-for-like" even though the name remains the same?

pangolin

I think as danlikesbikes says, they are allowed to replace with the new model even though it's cheaper.

Docs are here First Aspect

http://uk.protectyourbubble.com/bicycle-insurance/documents.html?docId=29

You could complain about the time it has taken (and will take still, as it's almost 2 months away) and see if you can get some cash for pedals and lock that way.

danlikesbikes

tetm wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

2) if the bike was insured on an new for old basis (often also called like for like) & the new model they are working from is now cheaper then you have no room to move as they are paying for a replacement which is the equivalent model & the cover that you purchased.

So it seems like this is the case, and now that Scott appear to have upped the spec this may not be so relevant, however, if the 2013 bike with the same name was both cheaper and with a lower spec what would be the case then? As Pangolin pointed out the only differences now are subtle - different stem, seat post, saddle and tyres - are these enough for it to no longer be "like-for-like" even though the name remains the same?

Looks like were getting somewhere then, if were agreed on the new for old basis.

I would need to read the policy wording to be sure but their website does give a few pointers that are excluded such as tyres and removable parts. Tyres I think you could argue should be included as the general norm is for a bike to come with them & you might get somewhere in pointing out the cost difference.

Other parts I am just looking at now - have found a copy of their wording. Give me 5 - 10 minutes & I'll be back after getting a coffee and reading it.

tetm

Cheers Danlikesbikes!

Next question. I appreciate that they have specified Wheelies as the replacement bike shop, who say that they can't get stock until May. However, other bike shops on the web appear to have the same item in stock, what are the chances of getting an insurance company to change their supplier to get the new for old replacement? It has been 9 weeks to get this far after all...

First.Aspect

pangolin wrote:

I think as danlikesbikes says, they are allowed to replace with the new model even though it's cheaper.

Docs are here First Aspect

http://uk.protectyourbubble.com/bicycle-insurance/documents.html?docId=29

You could complain about the time it has taken (and will take still, as it's almost 2 months away) and see if you can get some cash for pedals and lock that way.

Bicycle: any cycle, adult tricycle or a tandem, including component parts and Accessories permanently fixed to the cycle, specified in Your Schedule

"replace, or pay the cost of replacing the Bicycle, with a similar article of like kind, functionality, and quality. We may use specialist suppliers for replacement chosen by Us."

What is not covered.... Any tyres, or removable parts, unless the Bicycle is stolen at the same time

I would say that they ARE entitled to specify the bike shop and they ARE entitled to replace the bike with something similar but not the same and that you are entitled to claim for pedals or other parts which are permanently affixed to the bike ONLY IF they are on your insurance schedule and if the bicycle was stolen at the same time (which it was). The lock is not covered, because it is not permanently fixed to the bicycle.

There does appear to be a slight of hand here though, in that they have evaluated the replacement cost based on this year's model, even though its not yet available, and offered you another type of bike for the cost of the unavailable one. I would say that, if the old model is still available at the higher cost, this is what you should receive. However, this would depend on the interpretation of "similar" - it is a deliberately loose term.

You could try arguing that the other £999 bike is not sufficiently similar to fall within the terms of the agreement and request that they either select another vendor with the new Scott in stock, or point to another model which you believe is sufficiently similar in kind, functionality and quality. Perhaps inidcate that you will have to find yourself a rental bike for 10 days at a cost of £25 a day (see section 5), while they think about it (which adds up to more than the difference).

To have any chance, you will have to build an argument that the proposed replacement is not of "similar quality". Are the groupsets in each case of a similar quality? Do they have the same number of gears (i.e. "similar functionality")? Is the frame material the same?

danlikesbikes

Right some answers that should get you a bit more £'s

Thankfully their policy wording is pretty standard so Bold & Caps used for definitions makes it easy to understand.

They have agreed to your bike as being a claim for Theft so they have to therefore under law follow their own definition of the bike which is;

Including the bike - Any tyres, or removable parts, unless the Bicycle is stolen at the same time. Which I assume the tyres went with the bike so you can argue for the difference to be paid from the replacement bike to reinstate you to a position prior to the loss.

Pedals can argue either way & you'd probably win on that if you can prove that they were fitted by the store that sold you them. I would argue that they are part of the definition of the Bicycle (they call component parts) & that it is not unreasonable to suggest that most bikes come these days without pedals and they were added & quite rightly taken into consideration by you when insuring the bike & disclosing its value when obtaining a quote. They will argue that they can't pay it as its an Accessory (they call this any equipment added and fixed to the Bicycle in addition to the manufacturer’s original specifications) however accessory definition only applies to an Accidental Damage claim not a Theft claim.

As for the general spec of the bike think they are not trying to rip you off as such (the claims handler probably doesn't know the difference between a track bike, road bike or single speed) but they are working from the details given by their approved supplier who has just forwarded the info that this new 2013 version is the "new model". I would happily use the same argument of the definition of the Bicycle (they call component parts) is different & it is not unreasonable for you to outline the price difference in those component parts that have changed.

Approved supplier - I can't see anything in their policy wording stating that you must use their approved supplier as it does not mention in their policy wording that you must use them. I would ask them to clarify this for you, which they will either point out that its in another document (which I can't get off their internet page) if so you might be stuck with it. However they might if you point out other suppliers have this in stock they may just go with another supplier to keep you happy. If they insist that you use their supplier I don't think it would be unreasonable for you to claim the delay is on the Insurers side & that of their suppliers as there are other suppliers out there that can supply you with the bike right now. If they still don't play ball then you might be entitled to claim their delay is unacceptable to the average layman & have a claim for this delay, though its might or might not get you anywhere.

Sorry if I have rambled on a bit but have been typing whilst on a conference call but think I have covered everything?

danlikesbikes

Actually take everything I said as OK, but have just found some more info Re the cost which might help too

danlikesbikes

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Actually take everything I said as OK, but have just found some more info Re the cost which might help too

Right the bike is basically on a new for old basis so as above. However their own website does have an FAQ's section which I found this page on - http://uk.protectyourbubble.com/how-muc ... e-for.html

So would look like they are saying that if you bought a bike its new for old, if you made it up prove this to them and its still new for old so think the extras like pedals, better stem, seat post, seat etc as long as you can prove this to them you are entitled to claim for. Even though this is not in the policy wording they are suggesting on their website it is acceptable & I would hold them to this too.

First.Aspect

If you get into an argument with the insurance company, they will refer you to the wording of the policy, not the FAQs page. I quoted the relevant passages of the wording of the policy.

danlikesbikes

First Aspect wrote:

If you get into an argument with the insurance company, they will refer you to the wording of the policy, not the FAQs page. I quoted the relevant passages of the wording of the policy.

Yes they will & quite rightly refer you to the policy wording and your policy schedule. However their FAQ's back up the fact that they they will offer cover on a like for like basis on a bike if you built it up yourself, this is also backed up by the policy wording.

I was merely point this out to the OP to back up that my comments on the components definition in the policy wording should include things like tyres, stem, seat post etc. Obviously there is only so much a definition can give or it would be a copy of war & peace not an easy to digest document.

If it went to court the general rule of thumb is what would any reasonable person consider to be a component & I would argue that the OP's parts would/should be included in this definition.

rolf_f

Question is, when you buy a bike, do you buy it because of the model name or do you buy it for the spec? Do you go to a shop and buy a bike because you like the name of it or because it has Tiagra rather than Sora. If the model is downgraded in spec terms, then it is no longer the same model that you selected.

I would detail the groupset components and say that I want a bike with those components as those are the features of the bike that made me choose that bike. Like for like is not (IMO) about the decals where bikes are concerned.

tetm

All, thank you very much for your MASSIVELY helpful inputs - really appreciate the time and effort from you all. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome today.

danlikesbikes

Any more problems just us know

gezebo

Glad you are sorted... Don't renew with Protect my Bubble, they may be cheep but you pay for it in other ways! We cancelled our policy after a year (fully paid up) to move to another provider and are we are still dealing with debt collection agency letters asking for THIS years payment in full... err we are not even a customer!!

bigmonka

I've had insurance companies use Wheelies for my claims previously. When agreeing a settlement amount they say that Wheelies can do bikes for 15% of RRP and so will only give you 85% of the bikes value. I have never been impressed with that and it might be worth checking whether there's any element of that in your claim.