As Casp read the same article I remember the guy who was involved was advised to 'sign his house over to his wife' as he risked loosing everything. Obviously the new owner wasn't aware the previous owner was running the insurance on but after the bloke crashed into another bike (iirc) the victims insurance company went after their losses which they were about to claim from the guy who no longer owner the bike but kept it insured. It's fact I'm afraid. Made me cancel my policy on an Enduro bike that had about a month to run.
Drink's correct. I saw an article on this before. If you hold insurance on the bike and someone has a claim against it, they'll come after you. They won't give a monkey's whether you think it's void or not, whether you've sold the bike or not.
IE, the little man gets bummed. Thanks for the info, I stand corrected Drinky. Luckily this was some time ago now and I shall not do it again. I suppose the same goes, say if you sold your car and the buyer crashed it on the way home before you had rang and cancelled the insurance and they were uninsured.
Interesting eye opener for everyone, much appreciated guys, that's filed away under 'bloody good things to know'
Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. True in theory, but no chance of it happening in fact. Prove me wrong...
I've read this thread all the way through now and while there is mention of the value of the car being irrelevant but not of what is relevant... The risk associated to each vehicle. If all R6s appeal to and are driven by petrol headed 24 year old new riders then the risk is higher and so is the premium, whether you paid £20 or £20,000. It's still a massive con and I resent being made to pay through the a-hole for something that I must have by law, in order to be an effectively functioning member of society. Aviva made £155m profit last year. So they managed to payout for all their claims, run their business, spend a bunch on advertising and still made £155m more than they spent. That's not right.
If it's a legal requirement, then it should be regulated by the government. Simply mentioning insurance and profits in the same breath is proof that the policyholders are being fleeced.
Managed to find the original question and answer on White Dalton's web site, look at his Oct 2013 blog and it gives his professional opinion. Sorry don't know how to create a direct link.
If you read the article it seems that this a common procedure even though it sounds like bollocks. I read the Andrew Dalton article every month and he seems to have his finger on the pulse but then again that's what you'd expect from a lawyer I suppose. If anyone was anti insurance company he's up there.
I just got a renewal through the post today for my Vespa GTS300 from the RAC. £160...........2 mins with the meerkats and it's down to £89. It's the same every year, I'm forever switching insurers on bikes. I have high hopes from Ducati Insurance who I used for the 1st time this year on a couple of bikes, we'll see.
My wife just renewed the insurance on our fun about, she was quoted £400+ For renewal, went on gocomeerkat and got it down by £100ish. Thing is it was with the same company. Called them and they honoured it, how frigging mad?
I pay £51 a year for TPFT on my 900 ss ie, my CBR600 is £80 and my Seat Leon 20v is £266 (comp) so cheap insurance is possible. It seems highly unlikely it will ever go down from there, but at those prices it couldn't reasonably be reduced by much, could it? I also had the unusual situation if getting a price on confused.com of £269 from my current car insurer, only for the renewal to come through £3 cheaper!
That's Aviva for you. To insure my Speed Triple direct with them, £1000. The *exact* same policy via a broker? £270. Thieving c*nts.
