Give the latest MCE news, I'm once again shopping around for insurance.
I don't remember if I asked this before but:
I have 3 bikes, normally on a multi-policy.
One of the main issues I ever had is the HP2 Sport. Insurers see an old (2009) motorbike worth a fairly large value and the problems start.
Now, the thing is, I don't really know what the value of the bike is. I always see them on sale at about 12k, so I insure mine a bit below that (11/10 + I have a ginormous excess).
The bike is used mostly as a track-bike. It has done some miles and it has a few marks here and there (even though most of the original fairings are in storage) so, fair to assume it is not worth like a showroom one. Also, insuring it at the slightly lower price helped with being able to actually have an insurance contract in the past.
One thing I am worried is if the insurance thinks I'm misrepresenting the bike (declaring too low of a value – even though I really don't think it is the case). At the same time, though, if you read the fine print most underwriters say that they will only reimburse you the actual market value of the bike, not what declared. So why the fuck do you ask me the value of the bike? Why don't you assign its value if you have access to that data?
Bottom line is: for me insurance is 90% for third party. In case of theft I want to recover money to buy another bike, but I'm under no illusion that I will get the full (potential) price of my bike. I also used it for years, enjoyed it, there's depreciation, yadda yadda...
What I'm getting at: I don't want to end up in the situation where an insurance contract is void because I declared too low of a value, or the opposite. Makes sense?
I don't remember if I asked this before but:
I have 3 bikes, normally on a multi-policy.
One of the main issues I ever had is the HP2 Sport. Insurers see an old (2009) motorbike worth a fairly large value and the problems start.
Now, the thing is, I don't really know what the value of the bike is. I always see them on sale at about 12k, so I insure mine a bit below that (11/10 + I have a ginormous excess).
The bike is used mostly as a track-bike. It has done some miles and it has a few marks here and there (even though most of the original fairings are in storage) so, fair to assume it is not worth like a showroom one. Also, insuring it at the slightly lower price helped with being able to actually have an insurance contract in the past.
One thing I am worried is if the insurance thinks I'm misrepresenting the bike (declaring too low of a value – even though I really don't think it is the case). At the same time, though, if you read the fine print most underwriters say that they will only reimburse you the actual market value of the bike, not what declared. So why the fuck do you ask me the value of the bike? Why don't you assign its value if you have access to that data?
Bottom line is: for me insurance is 90% for third party. In case of theft I want to recover money to buy another bike, but I'm under no illusion that I will get the full (potential) price of my bike. I also used it for years, enjoyed it, there's depreciation, yadda yadda...
What I'm getting at: I don't want to end up in the situation where an insurance contract is void because I declared too low of a value, or the opposite. Makes sense?