[Frankie]

Since being struck back in August by a motorist, I am of the thinking I might need to obtain a bicycle only policy on my 2012 Project one. Does any company offer that kind of coverage? My homeowners covered the replacement cost of my 2.3, but now there will be a few thousand dollars difference in the price of the bikes.

[Industry_Hack]

You'll need to contact your homeowner's insurance company and let them know the value of the bike, so they can write you a rider for the additional coverage. Most bikes are covered under sporting goods, which might be capped at $500 or $1000. I'm guessing you don't own a car?

[Frankie]

Thanks I will check it out and yes I do own a car. ?

[Industry_Hack]

Your auto policy may apply if you are in an accident with a motor vehicle, even on your bicycle.

[Frankie]

I ran by my insurance agent's office this afternoon. He said my bike was 100% covered in my homeowners policy. Of course replacement costs will be payed after I meet the deductible! Even if I use my truck to haul it somewhere to ride, it falls on my homeowners. Still nice to know its covered anyway. Thanks or the help, I was concerned.

[Industry_Hack]

If the bike is worth more than $500 or $1,000 to replace, be sure to double check. Many agents assume you have an inexpensive bicycle, and that it will be covered under standard limits for sporting goods. That may not be the case here.

[Frankie]

Funny you should mention that, I was very worried on that point, because they replaced the cost of my Trek 2.3 @ $1,750.00 in September of last year. We were face to face this afternoon when I asked him if my HO policy would cover my multi-thousand bike ( not bragging ) and he ( in front of another client ) said YES. That's why I went over to see him in the first place, I figured he would want to make it a rider. Anyway, if I have another accident ( Lord forbid ) they will be replacing a Trek Project One bicycle. I do hope if it does happen, I will be around to ride the replacement.

[photosbymark]

In my case my homeowners insurance has a deductible of 2% of the value of the house and lower isn't available. Then again my bikes are not worth enough to worry about covering, but I would be more interested in the liability aspect. Suppose you are out on a Sunday afternoon make a mistake. You do not see the #@$* Volt operating in electric mode and don't hear it either at an intersection that is loaded with trees and bushes in the vicinity. Thinking the intersection is clear, you start out and the Volt has to swerve to miss you, putting it head on into the path of an on coming Rolls Royce. Wonder how the lawyers would decide on who pays? That would most certainly meet my home owners deductible.

[Industry_Hack]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Funny you should mention that, I was very worried on that point, because they replaced the cost of my Trek 2.3 @ $1,750.00 in September of last year. We were face to face this afternoon when I asked him if my HO policy would cover my multi-thousand bike ( not bragging ) and he ( in front of another client ) said YES. That's why I went over to see him in the first place, I figured he would want to make it a rider. Anyway, if I have another accident ( Lord forbid ) they will be replacing a Trek Project One bicycle. I do hope if it does happen, I will be around to ride the replacement.

Make him show you where it states that in the policy. This is coming from someone who spent ten years handling claims. If it's not in the policy, it doesn't matter what your agent tells you.

Mark - in your scenario, there's contributory negligence, which spreads the blame around. But either a judge or arbitrator decides who pays. What really sucks is that you can have an uninsured total deadbeat be found 80% at fault, and the insurance company still has to pay him 20% of his damages, knowing they will never collect 80% of theirs.

[edit] That should be comparative liability, not contributory negligence.

[photosbymark]

Hack the situation I described also would likely vary from state to state to some extent. Some states still have no fault. Others would put the blame totally on the cyclist and add more to it the judge and jury would likely vary. Even then who sues gets downright crazy. I lost a friend in an airplane accident years ago. When they call the authorities and sent an ambulance out to see what they could do ( and that was nothing he died on impact) the ambulance drove by a guy that was driving drunk. The drunk ran up on the sidewalk because the ambulance distracted him, and hit someone on the sidewalk. The drunk sued the estate of the pilot on the grounds that if he had not been so careless as to have an airplane accident, then the ambulance that distracted him would have never been called. Total nonsense, but they had to defend the suit.

You are spot on though when you told them to show you where in the policy something is covered. If I recall correctly don't most policies have a statement that company employees can not modify the terms of the contract (translation it doesn't matter what they told you, its what here that counts.) though I think a few cases that has been overturned because agents were intentionally deceitful to sell a policy.

If there were a cheap bike liability insurance policy, its something I would consider. Yet sometimes that is not a plus. Insurance coverage can sometimes make it more likely for someone to sue because there is something to get. Whats the old joke Your honor I would like to request a delay in these proceedings. One what grounds? On the grounds that my client has some money that I didn't know about.