Insurance frustrations!

SJO76

I just wanted to air my frustrations, before the flames commence, and see if anyone has similar issues (or possibly even a solution).

I bought a bike worth £3200 in 2007 and the current value of a similarly specced bike is £5200. I have another bike originally worth £1250, a commuter worth £575 and my wifes worth £400. I am trying to get a bike insurance policy to cover all (given M&S is no longer an option). And find that firstly I will have to insure everything at current market value (which makes sense with new for old), with most insurers the 07 bike is now worth 30% less (but you still get to pay the same premium), some only insure a bike to a maximum of £5000 (which now puts me out of luck), some you need to own all bikes, some only allow a maximum of 3 bikes, some depreciate to a maximum 50% and others depreciate year on year regardless. In all honesty I don't want £5200 if anything were to happen to my bike (as thats far too expensive for me), but you can't under insure. All of this is very irritating

Nevertheless I found a one that will cover them all and its expensive at £64 per month. But I am left wondering what is the point especially with deprecation. I am tempted just to save a fixed amount say £50 a month and leave it at that. If a single bike is damaged/stolen as is most likely I will use the savings. And then if multiple bikes were damaged/stolen claim on my contents for those under £1000 and use the savings for the expensive one.

To be honest I need to down size.

So what are your experiences?

alan_sherman

Why is M&S no longer an option?

thistle_

Do you really need to put the full price of a new bike if you only want the current value? I thought if you said it was costs £3200 then they will only pay £3200, if you say it's £5200 to replace then they'll give you £5200.

Have you tried ringing one of the companies to check?

SJO76

M&S no longer have the clause which allows you to insure unnamed items of up to £4000. If you have them as named items the premium jumps right up and you may as well have specialist bike insurance.

I have rung 4 now and they have all said that you need to have a current valuation as you insuring the replacement value and that you can't under insure. I don't know if having a custom bike complicates the situation. But an off the shelf 2007 bike I can think of the S-Works Roubaix cost £3600 and the 2013 equivalent is £6500 so surely the same applies?

Prices don't seem to have changed so drastically in the lower ranges.

slowbike

you do own all the bikes - if your wife is your wife in law then you own everything together?

Gazzaputt

SJO76 wrote:

M&S no longer have the clause which allows you to insure unnamed items of up to £4000. If you have them as named items the premium jumps right up and you may as well have specialist bike insurance.

I have rung 4 now and they have all said that you need to have a current valuation as you insuring the replacement value and that you can't under insure. I don't know if having a custom bike complicates the situation. But an off the shelf 2007 bike I can think of the S-Works Roubaix cost £3600 and the 2013 equivalent is £6500 so surely the same applies?

Prices don't seem to have changed so drastically in the lower ranges.

Yes M&S now ask you itemise bikes over £2k even if you had an old policy with the £4k limit.

But I insured my Scott worth £5.5k for £100 year. I explained it was a custom build and the price was everything at RRP. They were fine with it.

I though £100 extra to be ok.

SJO76

Gazzaputt wrote:

But I insured my Scott worth £5.5k for £100 year. I explained it was a custom build and the price was everything at RRP. They were fine with it.

I though £100 extra to be ok.

Interesting. Where do you live?

I was quoted £40 a month extra on an M&S policy based on the original £3200 value (plus the other bikes)!

I wonder if the insurance policy will be valid in say 3 years time as prices go up, or whether they would worm their way out of it if you had to for instance make a £7.5k claim on a new for old basis? Or if they would simply honour the original £5.5k price? I do wonder if there is any consistency here between insuring an older bike at replacement value and a new bike at price paid as time passes.

drlodge

I've posted before with my views on bike insurance - its prohibitively expensive (the Rourke value is about £5k). My bikes are insured while in the property on the contents policy (Direct Line - up to value of contents insured) and which costs the grand sum of £40 per year for my 2 bedroom flat. When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

Because someone might crash into you and do a runner? Or you might crash into something and "write off" your bike ...
Ok - slim chance, but something you'd have to consider when choosing whether to insure or not.

gabriel959

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

Because someone might crash into you and do a runner? Or you might crash into something and "write off" your bike ...
Ok - slim chance, but something you'd have to consider when choosing whether to insure or not.

+1 That is why.

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

Because someone might crash into you and do a runner? Or you might crash into something and "write off" your bike ...
Ok - slim chance, but something you'd have to consider when choosing whether to insure or not.

I do have BC insurance to give me third party cover, the rest I'll risk.

SJO76

I think you could argue that i own all the bikes. No doubt they would probably argue the other way if it came to a claim

I had two bikes stolen when at my Aunts on holiday in Leeds in 08. And had £1000 crash damage to my expensive bike in 09. So I wouldn't feel comfortable doing nothing but I agree it is a ridiculous state of affairs these days.

But with depreciation in a couple of years it will be almost pointless to be insuring them in which time I could have saved £1000-1200. Its a shame Eta Cycle Ins have a maximum value of £5000 per bike as they seem to have no depreciation.

Grill

BC insurance will be cheaper. I pay less than that covering 7k of bikes.

drlodge

All the bike insurance I've looked into came out at around 7-8% of the bike's value per year, so for £5k of bike you're talking £400 to insure it, against a very low probability risk. I therefore take the view that should I have an issue I'll take the hit, using the £400 per year I've saved on insurance. So essentially I'm insuring myself.

SJO76

Grill wrote:

BC insurance will be cheaper. I pay less than that covering 7k of bikes.

BC insurance is provided by Cycleguard which only cover up to 3 bikes. And a quote from them direct is £70 a month for only 3 with a value of £7500 (as i am not a BC member, Gold membership only gives you 10% off and other BC memberships seem to give you the same multi bike discount that everyone gets). They have depreciation of 10% per year after 3 years to a max of 50%. Perhaps there is an issue with the area I live in?

drlodge

SJO76 wrote:

Grill wrote:

BC insurance will be cheaper. I pay less than that covering 7k of bikes.

BC insurance is provided by Cycleguard which only cover up to 3 bikes. And a quote from them direct is £70 a month for only 3 with a value of £7500 (as i am not a BC member, Gold membership only gives you 10% off and other BC memberships seem to give you the same multi bike discount that everyone gets). They have depreciation of 10% per year after 3 years to a max of 50%. Perhaps there is an issue with the area I live in?

That's about 11% of the bike value in premiums each year, I rest my case

Grill

SJO76 wrote:

Grill wrote:

BC insurance will be cheaper. I pay less than that covering 7k of bikes.

BC insurance is provided by Cycleguard which only cover up to 3 bikes. And a quote from them direct is £70 a month for only 3 with a value of £7500 (as i am not a BC member, Gold membership only gives you 10% off and other BC memberships seem to give you the same multi bike discount that everyone gets). They have depreciation of 10% per year after 3 years to a max of 50%. Perhaps there is an issue with the area I live in?

Shouldn't be an issue with area, but if I were you I wouldn't bother to insure the bikes that are 400 and 575 as they'll be covered under your home contents insurance. I know it's more expensive to pay monthly, but I have a policy for my Foil (3K) which covers racing as well as worldwide travel for 200 quid a year and my Plasma cover (4k) also has race cover and is 240. This includes one claim.

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

Because someone might crash into you and do a runner? Or you might crash into something and "write off" your bike ...
Ok - slim chance, but something you'd have to consider when choosing whether to insure or not.

I do have BC insurance to give me third party cover, the rest I'll risk.

Me too ... but some ppl are more risk adverse.

LittlePlums

drlodge wrote:

When not in the flat, the bike is under my bum and therefore unlikely to be stolen. So why bother insuring it?

Having recently had cause to claim on my home contents insurance for accidental damage outside of the home when I was involved in a collision, cracking my carbon fibre frame, I would say insure, insure, insure.

My story of aggro with the insurance company was aired elsewhere on this forum, so I won't go into details, but in terms of insured value, be aware that although the policy is new for old, the insurer will only offer a cash settlement of the cost to them of replacing the bike. Some have deals with suppliers, so you may find that they have negotiated a discount, and will offer you somewhat less than the current market value, even though you may have insured your bike on the basis of the current RRP.

In fairness to my insurers, they have now come good (or at least the cheque is in the post), but it has taken a month to reach this stage and a lot of stress.

slowbike

LittlePlums wrote:

In fairness to my insurers, they have now come good (or at least the cheque is in the post), but it has taken a month to reach this stage and a lot of stress.

See - I'd take this as a reason to self insure ... the stress is simple - you either have the money to repair/replace the broken bits or you don't. If you don't then you need to save till you have. If you have then you get it done.

Insurance isn't some sort of charity - it's a gamble, pure and simple - usually stacked in the insurance co's favour - otherwise they wouldn't offer it cos they've got to make money to exist.

Critical things I can understand insuring - or things that are that valuable that you couldn't afford to loose it (ie a house). But for non-essentials I'd not be so concerned unless I felt the risk was worth the premium.

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

LittlePlums wrote:

In fairness to my insurers, they have now come good (or at least the cheque is in the post), but it has taken a month to reach this stage and a lot of stress.

See - I'd take this as a reason to self insure ... the stress is simple - you either have the money to repair/replace the broken bits or you don't. If you don't then you need to save till you have. If you have then you get it done.

Insurance isn't some sort of charity - it's a gamble, pure and simple - usually stacked in the insurance co's favour - otherwise they wouldn't offer it cos they've got to make money to exist.

Critical things I can understand insuring - or things that are that valuable that you couldn't afford to loose it (ie a house). But for non-essentials I'd not be so concerned unless I felt the risk was worth the premium.

Your logic is whack. By your reasoning everyone should wait until they can afford two before they buy one. Plus you're not even taking into account the liability involved if you hit someone and they sue. Remember that house you had? Goodbye!
As an example my Plasma 3 frameset has an RRP of £4600, but I was fortunate enough to pick it up for £1600. Now if something happens to it what are the chances I'll be able to pick up a new one for £1600? Pretty much none. When my Foil was damaged in transit my insurance company paid out the 2k for a new frame. Could I have afforded to buy the frame myself? Sure, but why should I pay for someone else's mistake, that's what insurance is for and why I pay my £200 a year premium.
It absolutely boggles the mind that people don't see the value in bike insurance when in many cases it's A) worth more than their car, gets more use than their car, and C) insurance is cheaper than that of their car.

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

LittlePlums wrote:

In fairness to my insurers, they have now come good (or at least the cheque is in the post), but it has taken a month to reach this stage and a lot of stress.

See - I'd take this as a reason to self insure ... the stress is simple - you either have the money to repair/replace the broken bits or you don't. If you don't then you need to save till you have. If you have then you get it done.

Insurance isn't some sort of charity - it's a gamble, pure and simple - usually stacked in the insurance co's favour - otherwise they wouldn't offer it cos they've got to make money to exist.

Critical things I can understand insuring - or things that are that valuable that you couldn't afford to loose it (ie a house). But for non-essentials I'd not be so concerned unless I felt the risk was worth the premium.

This pretty much reflects my attitude - only insure where you can't afford to payout yourself as the odds are stacked in favour of the insurer. For me that means insuring only the house and car. The money I save by not insuring everything esle then pays for the mishaps that do happen, but overall I end up better off.

drlodge

Grill wrote:

Your logic is whack. By your reasoning everyone should wait until they can afford two before they buy one. Plus you're not even taking into account the liability involved if you hit someone and they sue. Remember that house you had? Goodbye!
As an example my Plasma 3 frameset has an RRP of £4600, but I was fortunate enough to pick it up for £1600. Now if something happens to it what are the chances I'll be able to pick up a new one for £1600? Pretty much none. When my Foil was damaged in transit my insurance company paid out the 2k for a new frame. Could I have afforded to buy the frame myself? Sure, but why should I pay for someone else's mistake, that's what insurance is for and why I pay my £200 a year premium.
It absolutely boggles the mind that people don't see the value in bike insurance when in many cases it's A) worth more than their car, gets more use than their car, and C) insurance is cheaper than that of their car.

I see your point Grill, but I think you're also missing a point. Whether you decide to insure I think depends on 2 factors:
(a) whether you can afford the loss. If not (in your case) then insurance is a better option, if you can afford the loss (as is perhaps my case) they I reckon the odds are stacked more in my favour. If I put away your £200 each year, in the long run that should more than pay for any losses I incurr.
(b) consider (a) also whether you think insurance is a cost effective option. If the premium is cheap then on balanace you may consider the odds to be stacked more in your favour (£10 a year to insure a £5k bike would clearer be good value and a no brainer).

Third party liability type insurance is almost always worth taking out since the losses can be much higher and both (a) and (b) above would indicate that I can't afford the loss and its good value. BC insurance certainly fits in this camp.

nferrar

Well it's kind of stating the obvious. Ofc you should only insure things you can't easily afford to replace and ofc insurance is basically a gamble - but then that applies to self-insurance. Insuring my most expensive costs me about £45 a year with M&S, if I self-insure and put away £200 it would only be the better option if I didn't need to claim within 2 years. For me that's too much of a risk, for others it might not be.

Grill

drlodge wrote:

Grill wrote:

Your logic is whack. By your reasoning everyone should wait until they can afford two before they buy one. Plus you're not even taking into account the liability involved if you hit someone and they sue. Remember that house you had? Goodbye!
As an example my Plasma 3 frameset has an RRP of £4600, but I was fortunate enough to pick it up for £1600. Now if something happens to it what are the chances I'll be able to pick up a new one for £1600? Pretty much none. When my Foil was damaged in transit my insurance company paid out the 2k for a new frame. Could I have afforded to buy the frame myself? Sure, but why should I pay for someone else's mistake, that's what insurance is for and why I pay my £200 a year premium.
It absolutely boggles the mind that people don't see the value in bike insurance when in many cases it's A) worth more than their car, gets more use than their car, and C) insurance is cheaper than that of their car.

I see your point Grill, but I think you're also missing a point. Whether you decide to insure I think depends on 2 factors:
(a) whether you can afford the loss. If not (in your case) then insurance is a better option, if you can afford the loss (as is perhaps my case) they I reckon the odds are stacked more in my favour. If I put away your £200 each year, in the long run that should more than pay for any losses I incurr.
(b) consider (a) also whether you think insurance is a cost effective option. If the premium is cheap then on balanace you may consider the odds to be stacked more in your favour (£10 a year to insure a £5k bike would clearer be good value and a no brainer).

Third party liability type insurance is almost always worth taking out since the losses can be much higher and both (a) and (b) above would indicate that I can't afford the loss and its good value. BC insurance certainly fits in this camp.

I can afford to replace all my bikes, but I didn't get to a secure financial position by taking risks. I currently pay around £500 a year to cover 8k in bikes. That's about 6% of the cost of replacement and covers me for ALL incidents, whether it be loss due to mine or someone else's negligence (including racing) and theft. By your logic I shouldn't carry insurance.

I know quite a few people who've refused to carry insurance on their bikes. You know what happens when something happens with their bike? Yeah, they wish they'd had had it and curse their own shortsightedness. You will actually find that the highest demographic of those who insure, are those who can can afford to replace their losses. You don't stay wealthy by making silly decisions or taking unnecessary risk.

A) Not in my experience. The majority of cyclists I know have written off at least one bike, and it's a lot higher for those who race.
£10 a year to insure a 5k bike is not even a real number. Any actuary would immediately suffer a stroke if that was a proposed figure. Do you only carry third-party liability on your car and if so what's it worth?

drlodge

Grill wrote:

I can afford to replace all my bikes, but I didn't get to a secure financial position by taking risks. I currently pay around £500 a year to cover 8k in bikes. That's about 6% of the cost of replacement and covers me for ALL incidents, whether it be loss due to mine or someone else's negligence (including racing) and theft. By your logic I shouldn't carry insurance.

Not at all - under (b) you consider £500 a year to be cost effective, and so might I if I had that value in bikes and raced - but I don't. Its a personal decision based on your circumstances and clearly racing increase the probability of a claim

Grill wrote:

I know quite a few people who've refused to carry insurance on their bikes. You know what happens when something happens with their bike? Yeah, they wish they'd had had it and curse their own shortsightedness. You will actually find that the highest demographic of those who insure, are those who can can afford to replace their losses. You don't stay wealthy by making silly decisions or taking unnecessary risk.

A) Not in my experience. The majority of cyclists I know have written off at least one bike, and it's a lot higher for those who race.
£10 a year to insure a 5k bike is not even a real number. Any actuary would immediately suffer a stroke if that was a proposed figure. Do you only carry third-party liability on your car and if so what's it worth?

I have fully comp on my car since third party/fire/theft is hardly any less, so I see fully comp as good value given the other fringe benefits it provides. My car is worth £4k max, so the value of the car isn't a big deal.

Grill

That begs the question, is your car policy under £300 a year? And if not, do you not see the value in taking out such a policy for a 4k bike?

drlodge

Grill wrote:

That begs the question, is your car policy under £300 a year? And if not, do you not see the value in taking out such a policy for a 4k bike?

My car policy is a shade above £300 a year but we're not comparing like with like. The biggest risk by far is me causing damage to another party or a third party where the claims could be massive - not in damaging the car or bike where the loss is capped at the value of the car/bike. This is why car insurance is needed in the main, and why it is illegal not to have it. I already took out BC insurance to cover this when on my bike, so additional bike insurance would only then cover loss or damage to the bike, which I judge to be not worth the cost.

slowbike

Grill wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

LittlePlums wrote:

In fairness to my insurers, they have now come good (or at least the cheque is in the post), but it has taken a month to reach this stage and a lot of stress.

See - I'd take this as a reason to self insure ... the stress is simple - you either have the money to repair/replace the broken bits or you don't. If you don't then you need to save till you have. If you have then you get it done.

Insurance isn't some sort of charity - it's a gamble, pure and simple - usually stacked in the insurance co's favour - otherwise they wouldn't offer it cos they've got to make money to exist.

Critical things I can understand insuring - or things that are that valuable that you couldn't afford to loose it (ie a house). But for non-essentials I'd not be so concerned unless I felt the risk was worth the premium.

Your logic is whack. By your reasoning everyone should wait until they can afford two before they buy one. Plus you're not even taking into account the liability involved if you hit someone and they sue. Remember that house you had? Goodbye!
As an example my Plasma 3 frameset has an RRP of £4600, but I was fortunate enough to pick it up for £1600. Now if something happens to it what are the chances I'll be able to pick up a new one for £1600? Pretty much none. When my Foil was damaged in transit my insurance company paid out the 2k for a new frame. Could I have afforded to buy the frame myself? Sure, but why should I pay for someone else's mistake, that's what insurance is for and why I pay my £200 a year premium.
It absolutely boggles the mind that people don't see the value in bike insurance when in many cases it's A) worth more than their car, gets more use than their car, and C) insurance is cheaper than that of their car.

Your understanding is "whack" ... this discussion was primarily about fully comp insurance - I, like many others, belong to BC (or CTC) and have the benefit of their 3rd party insurance ...

And no - it's not being able to afford 2 bikes - You buy a bike for £1600 and spend £200/yr on insurance - 8 years would see you paying for the bike again. Not sure about bike insurance, but car insurance doesn't give you back more money than you paid for it ... Actually I doubt bike insurance would do that - buy a bike for £1600, insure it for value of £4600 and crash it ... get £4600 ... buy a bike for £1600, insure for value of £4600 and crash it etc etc ... nah - can't see the insurance co's going for that ...

Transit insurance is different - if I was transporting my bike around the world via aircraft then I would consider insurance against theft & damage - because the risk is high (but I guess you didn't read my last sentence).

Last time I looked at full insurance for my bikes it would mean paying the price of the bike every 2 years. I don't know what you've got covered with your insurance, but £200 is a good premium for fully comp.

Btw - it's not less than the car insurance ..

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Your understanding is "whack" ... this discussion was primarily about fully comp insurance - I, like many others, belong to BC (or CTC) and have the benefit of their 3rd party insurance ...

And no - it's not being able to afford 2 bikes - You buy a bike for £1600 and spend £200/yr on insurance - 8 years would see you paying for the bike again. Not sure about bike insurance, but car insurance doesn't give you back more money than you paid for it ... Actually I doubt bike insurance would do that - buy a bike for £1600, insure it for value of £4600 and crash it ... get £4600 ... buy a bike for £1600, insure for value of £4600 and crash it etc etc ... nah - can't see the insurance co's going for that ...

Transit insurance is different - if I was transporting my bike around the world via aircraft then I would consider insurance against theft & damage - because the risk is high (but I guess you didn't read my last sentence).

Last time I looked at full insurance for my bikes it would mean paying the price of the bike every 2 years. I don't know what you've got covered with your insurance, but £200 is a good premium for fully comp.

Btw - it's not less than the car insurance ..

You clearly haven't read any insurance policies lately as even auto policies will give fair market value (so if you purchased it for less you stand to make a profit). I bought my 2012 Foil 20 Ultegra for 1800 without wheels. The RRP of the frameset is 1900, and that's exactly what my insurance company paid for it as well as labor for transferring parts. They insure the RRP value of the bike, not what you paid and that's what your policy is based upon. I sent them the copy of the receipt as well as told them I could source the frameset for less, but that didn't matter. I have worldwide travel cover on my policy, but that can only be added once you're fully comp and if you read the fine print most companies out there wouldn't pay out for damage in transit (BC does).

Saying that you would have to pay 50% of the value of your bike to insure it is ludicrous. Plus there is no reason to keep insurance on any bike once it's depreciated to the extent that you mention. I've gone through 10 bike this year and only keep my best ones insured. So last month my Plasma 2 and Foil 20 were on the policy and now one is going and the other is leaving so insurance is now on the WM and Plasma 3. I wouldn't bother to insure anything that's less than a couple grand as my situation dictates it's unnecessary in my current situation.

My Plasma 3 is indeed insured for that, but what you're alluding to is insurance fraud and is something I want no part in. I love my bikes and would much rather nothing ever happened to them than to have to submit another claim. The price of my premium is worth the peace of mind.

slowbike

No - I've not read insurance policies - just the quotes were enough not to bother proceeding further. Whether that changes with my recent purchase or not I don't know - probably not.
Yes - I'd be upset if my best bike got damaged beyond repair - but that's about it.

As far as I'm concerned the risk is low. I ride a fair few miles (>4k this year if things go to plan) but most of that is in this country around my local area.
I should get another quote for insurance though - see if the gamble is worth it... otherwise I'll continue down the "self insure" route.