Write off, Cycleplan any experience?
jpower
Posts: 554
Hi,
Very sadly I was wiped out on Sunday club ride and my 5 day old bike is a write off, the seat stay is cracked along with lots of other damage.
I have cyclopean insurance and have filed a claim, I am in the waiting game now and obviously nervous as hell, wondering if anyone had experience of how cyclopean are with regards to paying out?
Very sadly I was wiped out on Sunday club ride and my 5 day old bike is a write off, the seat stay is cracked along with lots of other damage.
I have cyclopean insurance and have filed a claim, I am in the waiting game now and obviously nervous as hell, wondering if anyone had experience of how cyclopean are with regards to paying out?
0
Comments
-
You can Google their reviews. They seem good paying out for damage from what I found.0
-
Yeah seeing the same thing, just wondered if anyone had first hand experience.0
-
5 days old ...devastating
0 -
waiting is painful0
-
Tell me about it! I wrote off a 2 month old bike 10 days ago. With a different insurer (pedalcover) and waiting to find out if it's going to be a frameset replacement or a whole new bike.0
-
How did the crash happen ? Sounds like a big one.0
-
You don't wanna know, group ride, overtaken on my right cut right across hit my front wheel, went sideways and down, the train behind me, got hit by the next 2 in the train, right mess. Very silly mistake (costly)0
-
What are people's thoughts on claiming off other riders? Most clubs seem to have compulsory BC membership for the 3rd party insurance so theoretically you'd be be able to claim if someone else took you out on a club run. Really not sure it's the done thing though. Has anyone done this?0
-
From what I've seen, when people have tried that - their claim has been reduced by 60% or so as they were riding close to the rider in front.0
-
Yes all persons are BC members and the chap did take fault for what happened and all reported to BC. But going via my own insurance first, BC would be backup plan on failure. Called insurer sounds like they are happy with info and agree its a write off, saying they are getting like value replacement quote from there supplier. Apparently they then offer to replace with that, but I believe I get to refuse and take cash settlement and order myself. However thats jumping the gun, think I have a few more days and a weekend to get through. Arrgghhhhh.0
-
I didn't think BC insurance covers situations like that in any case. I assumed it was there solely for if you caused damage to completely unrelated 3rd parties otherwise you'd have members claiming against each other all the time.0
-
Would be rather strange.0
-
My crash was similar - touch of wheels in a group ride, the person next to me lost his front wheel as a result, took me out as he went down then the people behind went over the top. I wouldn't have tried to claim from another rider in that situation - we were all riding a similar distance from the person in front and no one person was to blame more than anyone else. As far as I'm concerned that's why I take out insurance because I wouldn't expect someone else to cover it.
The claim is fine, the delay seems to be getting confirmation from giant as to whether they actually do replacement framesets for my model or whether it needs to be a full replacement. (Also it's only 7 days since pedalcover started dealing with it rather than the full 10 days).0 -
hjghg5 wrote:Tell me about it! I wrote off a 2 month old bike 10 days ago. With a different insurer (pedalcover) and waiting to find out if it's going to be a frameset replacement or a whole new bike.
I'm with PedalCover as of January this year so interested in how this turns out.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
hjghg5 wrote:My crash was similar - touch of wheels in a group ride, the person next to me lost his front wheel as a result, took me out as he went down then the people behind went over the top. I wouldn't have tried to claim from another rider in that situation - we were all riding a similar distance from the person in front and no one person was to blame more than anyone else. As far as I'm concerned that's why I take out insurance because I wouldn't expect someone else to cover it.
The claim is fine, the delay seems to be getting confirmation from giant as to whether they actually do replacement framesets for my model or whether it needs to be a full replacement. (Also it's only 7 days since pedalcover started dealing with it rather than the full 10 days).
In this case there was total fault, enough time even for people to yell about what was about to happen. However it's not that fella fault that the bikes that went down was. Canyon, S-works and a Pinarello (I can hear the screams)
Looks we are both in the waiting game.0 -
BC specifically states that their insurance will not claim against other BC members
0 -
moonshine wrote:BC specifically states that their insurance will not claim against other BC members
Where?
It says:
What is not covered?
Important exclusions include:
•Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.
•Deliberate acts.
•The following member to member liability claims (claims made against one British Cycling member by another(2)):
◦One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event(3).
◦Any liability directly or indirectly caused to a member’s immediate family.
•Claims against members who are not resident in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands.
So, it only excludes member to member when racing and even that's not relevant if one club rider is with say Cycling UK and the other BC.
It seems like it's not the done thing to claim as you're all mates when in reality it will cost the person you're claiming against nothing. I was in similar situation and didn't claim but my decision didn't really make any sense.0 -
londoncommuter wrote:It seems like it's not the done thing to claim as you're all mates when in reality it will cost the person you're claiming against nothing. I was in similar situation and didn't claim but my decision didn't really make any sense.
Rather odd right? If I was with my mates and someone caused an accident that was going to cost me a lot of money OR he is insured and it will cost him nothing.
I know which one of those I would call a mate.0 -
londoncommuter wrote:moonshine wrote:BC specifically states that their insurance will not claim against other BC members
Where?
It says:
What is not covered?
Important exclusions include:
•Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.
•Deliberate acts.
•The following member to member liability claims (claims made against one British Cycling member by another(2)):
◦One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event(3).
◦Any liability directly or indirectly caused to a member’s immediate family.
•Claims against members who are not resident in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands.
So, it only excludes member to member when racing and even that's not relevant if one club rider is with say Cycling UK and the other BC.
It seems like it's not the done thing to claim as you're all mates when in reality it will cost the person you're claiming against nothing. I was in similar situation and didn't claim but my decision didn't really make any sense.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/legalsupport
Unfortunately, the British Cycling Incident Helpline and British Cycling’s solicitors will not support a legal action:
against another British Cycling member.
against a member of one’s immediate family.
where there is a conflict of interest between a member and British Cycling eg where a claim may be against an organiser or official of a British Cycling registered event (1).
involving contractual, sale of goods and services or product liability issues such as faulty bikes or equipment (see below for information on assistance available if you have injuries which may have been caused by a defect with your bike).
involving criminal legal advice or representation.
where the incident takes place outside of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands (see below for information on assistance available if you are involved in an incident abroad).
where membership was not current at the time of the incident (2).
where the incident involves a Ride member taking part in a competitive race or time trial.0 -
the way i read this page on BC Third party liability https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability
is that it is insurance held by you (or another BC member ) to indemnify you / them against a third party claim. it says:
If you are involved in an incident causing injury or property damage that was (or is alleged to have been) your fault your insurance cover may indemnify you in respect of the legal costs of defending a third party claim and any resulting damages awarded against you. Cover is up to a limit of £15 million(6) and British Cycling will pay any insurance excess that applies.
so if you are alleging the another rider party has caused harm / loss to you, they would be covered by the BC third party insurance indemnity.
The question is how are you going to sue them for your loss?
as per my previous post, you as a BC member have Legal cover that would normally let you pursue some one that caused you a loss. ..... however a specific exclusion from this cover is you are not able to sue another BC member.... therefore you cannot use the BC legal Expenses cover to chase the other rider for your loss.
If you have a household policy that includes Legal cover, then you could by all means sue using this, however the defendant would have access to BC solicitors to defend the case.
notwithstanding this, i wouldn't. otherwise you will be riding on your own for a long time. If the other rider offers to pay something, then fine take it and shake hands. if they don't, then you just have to mark a cars and put it down to experience.0 -
The way i read it is the "insurance products" offered by BC are as follows:
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/legalandinsurance
Third Party Liability - to protect you from being sued - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability
Legal Insurance - to sue someone for a loss - but cannot be used to sue a fellow BC member - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/legalsupport
Bike insurance - to indemnify yourself against a loss or damage to of your own property - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/bikeinsurance
Travel insurance - self explanatory - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/travelinsurance
Club & Event insurance - to indemnify organisers & Clubs - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/clubinsurance
Personal Injury Insurance - for gold membes only, to indemnify yourself against injury - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/perso ... tinsurance
coaches insurance - to protect coaches - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/coachesinsurance and
Cycle rescue - for breakdowns etc - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cyclerescue
that is it. no way to sue a fellow club rider via BC membership insurance, tho you are protected from being sued bu a fellow rider and you can take out bike insurance to mitigate / indemnify against a loss caused by a fellow rider if you so choose.0 -
moonshine wrote:The question is how are you going to sue them for your loss?
Just as anyone who isn't a member of BC would do if they're hit by a car or another rider. The rider at fault calls up their insurer (BC in this case) and notifies them that they've caused a third party a loss and BC take it from there in quantifying the cost.
All a moot point if we've all decided we wouldn't do this in reality. Kind of raises the question of why all clubs seem to insist on cover. I guess you could cause a really serious accident to another rider or scratch a Porsche but much less likely.moonshine wrote:
notwithstanding this, i wouldn't. otherwise you will be riding on your own for a long time. If the other rider offers to pay something, then fine take it and shake hands. if they don't, then you just have to mark a cars and put it down to experience.
I suppose that's my point. It would seem really wrong to take money off a fellow rider but by claiming from the insurer it would cost them nothing. But somehow it's still not seen as acceptable.0 -
i think you have missed the point i was making - the person doing the suing - the person who suffered the loss ... would need to sue the defendant in order to get a payment. It is third party liability insurance - i.e. insurance against a claim being made against you - someone (the pursuer) still has to make the claim first. and you as a pursuer ( are excluded from using BC to do so)londoncommuter wrote:moonshine wrote:The question is how are you going to sue them for your loss?
Just as anyone who isn't a member of BC would do if they're hit by a car or another rider. The rider at fault calls up their insurer (BC in this case) and notifies them that they've caused a third party a loss and BC take it from there in quantifying the cost.
normally the pursuer would do so using the BC Legal cover element of member insurances and say they incurred a loss, caused by person X and BC would advance the pursuer claim - but the issue is this the clause which specifically excludes BC member to BC member claims. - so the pursuer could not use BC legal cover to advance their claim.
if the pursuer, i(.e. the one who suffered a loss) had other legal recourse (e.g. via a household legal cover policy) they could still sue the defendant - but in that case, BC's Third party indemnity insurance would kick in ... but it would be acting for the interests of the defendant - and defending against the claim, not for you as a pursuer.
is that a bit clearer?0 -
moonshine wrote:
i think you have missed the point i was making - the person doing the suing - the person who suffered the loss ... would need to sue the defendant in order to get a payment. It is third party liability insurance - i.e. insurance against a claim being made against you - someone (the pursuer) still has to make the claim first. and you as a pursuer ( are excluded from using BC to do so)londoncommuter wrote:moonshine wrote:The question is how are you going to sue them for your loss?
Just as anyone who isn't a member of BC would do if they're hit by a car or another rider. The rider at fault calls up their insurer (BC in this case) and notifies them that they've caused a third party a loss and BC take it from there in quantifying the cost.
normally the pursuer would do so using the BC Legal cover element of member insurances and say they incurred a loss, caused by person X and BC would advance the pursuer claim - but the issue is this the clause which specifically excludes BC member to BC member claims. - so the pursuer could not use BC legal cover to advance their claim.
if the pursuer, i(.e. the one who suffered a loss) had other legal recourse (e.g. via a household legal cover policy) they could still sue the defendant - but in that case, BC's Third party indemnity insurance would kick in ... but it would be acting for the interests of the defendant - and defending against the claim, not for you as a pursuer.
is that a bit clearer?
I appreciate that as the claimant, BC wouldn't be acting for you, would provide no assistance to you and would in fact fight the claim but that's no different from any "normal" claim made by a non-member against them or any other insurer.0 -
I suspect joe bloggs phoning up BC and "putting in a claim" would be given short shrift by BC, but am open to correction if you can cite examples or provide counter evidence.londoncommuter wrote:I appreciate that as the claimant, BC wouldn't be acting for you, would provide no assistance to you and would in fact fight the claim but that's no different from any "normal" claim made by a non-member against them or any other insurer.
The way i suspect one would claim against someone's third party liability insurance would be for a formal legal claim to be made against (against the person, and the defendant would then pass this claim to his insurers to defend the claim or settle if appropriate). I strongly suspect this is in essence discussions between two legal firms (one acting for the defendant and the other acting for the claimant) - not directly between a claimant and the defendants insurer.
think about it in terms of car insurance -
you have an accident - you contact your insurer - they sort out your loss, if appropriate, your insurers legal team pursue the third party to recover your loss - the third party insurers legal team investigate the claim against their insured, defend it, challenge the claim or pay out.
if it wasn't like this there would be scope for fraud.
If a cyclist runs into the back of a Bentley, the Bentley owner would contact his insurance to fix his car. It is perfectly correct the Bentley owner (or their insurer) isn't out of pocket and therefore the Bentley insurer seeks to recover costs from the cyclist. Now this is where an uninsured cyclist could be in deep doo-doo - as they are personally liable for the loss. The cyclist would receive notification of legal proceedings from the Bentley insurers stating their intention to recover costs and the uninsured cyclist would need to either pay or defend in court and hope they win..
however if the cyclist is has third party insurance, he can pass the notice of legal proceedings to his insurer who will investigate, defend or payout on the claim without exposing the defendant to financial risk.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, i believe the claimant would need to go legal in order to instigate a claim... i doubt an unsolicited claim from a random member of the public is going to elicit any sort of payment from BC.
in the event a personal claim could be made against BC, i suspect the legal power of the BC legal team would run rings around the personal claimant and lead to the case failing on a technicality0 -
londoncommuter wrote:I suppose that's my point. It would seem really wrong to take money off a fellow rider but by claiming from the insurer it would cost them nothing. But somehow it's still not seen as acceptable.
The issue I have with it is that most of the damage/claims will be made by those riding behind the fallen rider. We are supposed to abide by the highway code which does say "you should not ride close behind another vehicle" - a bicycle being a vehicle ...
when we ride in a group we are riding in trust that the rider(s) in front will ride in a considerate manner and warn of any course changes or obstacles in the road - occasionally that doesn't work and accidents happen - whist we can usually attribute "blame" to one rider making a mistake, the riders following are at fault for being too close to avoid an accident - same as if you were shunted by a car - it's the car behind that is at fault...
If you decide to ride your expensive 10 day old bike in close formation with others, then that's the risk you take - you can (as the OP has done) take out insurance to mitigate it, but you shouldn't rely on 3rd party insurance for an accident that you could've avoided (by not riding so close).
Yes - it's a risk we take every time we group ride - I'm fortunate enough not to have come off yet, although it did get a bit close the other week when someone braked heavily whist near the front of the line... I'm hoping they've learnt the lesson (no idea if anyone had a word or not).0 -
moonshine wrote:Again, for the avoidance of doubt, i believe the claimant would need to go legal in order to instigate a claim... i doubt an unsolicited claim from a random member of the public is going to elicit any sort of payment from BC
Lots and lots of cyclists, without any BC membership, have to a claim against a car driver's insurer. The claim would be given the nod by the driver who would admit fault to his insurer, just as the cyclist at fault here would.
Of course there could be collusion between the cyclists to commit insurance fraud but that's no different from the car/cyclist scenario.
I'm really not promoting/suggesting this (as I mentioned, I didn't claim), just wondered why nobody does.0 -
londoncommuter wrote:moonshine wrote:Again, for the avoidance of doubt, i believe the claimant would need to go legal in order to instigate a claim... i doubt an unsolicited claim from a random member of the public is going to elicit any sort of payment from BC
Lots and lots of cyclists, without any BC membership, have to a claim against a car driver's insurer. The claim would be given the nod by the driver who would admit fault to his insurer, just as the cyclist at fault here would.
Of course there could be collusion between the cyclists to commit insurance fraud but that's no different from the car/cyclist scenario.
You clearly think you have an full understanding of how this works -
glad you don't ride with me. i'm out0 -
moonshine wrote:londoncommuter wrote:moonshine wrote:Again, for the avoidance of doubt, i believe the claimant would need to go legal in order to instigate a claim... i doubt an unsolicited claim from a random member of the public is going to elicit any sort of payment from BC
Lots and lots of cyclists, without any BC membership, have to a claim against a car driver's insurer. The claim would be given the nod by the driver who would admit fault to his insurer, just as the cyclist at fault here would.
Of course there could be collusion between the cyclists to commit insurance fraud but that's no different from the car/cyclist scenario.
You clearly think you have an full understanding of how this works -
glad you don't ride with me. i'm out
No, I'm probably missing something obvious and not trying to argue. Just don't see how this is different from any other insurance claim. Someone is out of pocket due to someone else's action and thankfully the person at fault has insurance to cover this.
As a side issue, the person out of pocket can normally call on free legal support to help him with his claim but the provider (sensibly?) doesn't provide this when they'd be seeking to recover from themselves.
On that last point though, I can't imagine there are car insurance policies that say "tough, you're on your own if you get hit by another driver who's also insured by us"!0
