Does car insurance cover contents?
Discussion
Thinking about this the other day, I have a semi expensive mountain bike at 2k, but some of the bicycles people have now are 8-9k, carried around in the back of their cars.
If they were rear ended, the car being a write off and destroying the bike*, would the cost of the bike be recoverable from the other party's insurance?
This hasn't happened to me or anyone I know, just something I've been wondering.
If they were rear ended, the car being a write off and destroying the bike*, would the cost of the bike be recoverable from the other party's insurance?
This hasn't happened to me or anyone I know, just something I've been wondering.
- Other hobby / weekend pursuit materials are available.
If someone crashes into you then any and all damage they cause to your property is covered by their insurance. That's why third party insurance is compulsory.
Whether your bike is covered against theft, or you wrecking it as you crash all on your own will be down to the specifics of your own policy.
Whether your bike is covered against theft, or you wrecking it as you crash all on your own will be down to the specifics of your own policy.
snorky782 said:
If someone crashes into you then any and all damage they cause to your property is covered by their insurance. That's why third party insurance is compulsory.
Subject to it being reasonably foreseeable and any contributory negligence factors.If you had a £15m Faberge egg in a Tesco carrier bag in the boot, I doubt tp insurers would have to pick up the tab for that. It should have been transported in a secure shockproof container and probably not in the back of a 10 y/o Fiesta.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Subject to it being reasonably foreseeable and any contributory negligence factors.
If you had a £15m Faberge egg in a Tesco carrier bag in the boot, I doubt tp insurers would have to pick up the tab for that. It should have been transported in a secure shockproof container and probably not in the back of a 10 y/o Fiesta.
Do you want every caveat and exclusion listing on everything. Earthquakes, wars, terrorism, riot etcIf you had a £15m Faberge egg in a Tesco carrier bag in the boot, I doubt tp insurers would have to pick up the tab for that. It should have been transported in a secure shockproof container and probably not in the back of a 10 y/o Fiesta.
snorky782 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Subject to it being reasonably foreseeable and any contributory negligence factors.
If you had a £15m Faberge egg in a Tesco carrier bag in the boot, I doubt tp insurers would have to pick up the tab for that. It should have been transported in a secure shockproof container and probably not in the back of a 10 y/o Fiesta.
Do you want every caveat and exclusion listing on everything. Earthquakes, wars, terrorism, riot etcIf you had a £15m Faberge egg in a Tesco carrier bag in the boot, I doubt tp insurers would have to pick up the tab for that. It should have been transported in a secure shockproof container and probably not in the back of a 10 y/o Fiesta.
Coming back to the original question, there will come a point when the value of the bike is deemed too large to have been carried on the back of a car on a carrier, and the tp insurers will not be liable. That £250K carbon fibre thing that Lotus made a few years back for example.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nope, just damage caused to tp property as a result of negligence.
Coming back to the original question, there will come a point when the value of the bike is deemed too large to have been carried on the back of a car on a carrier, and the tp insurers will not be liable. That £250K carbon fibre thing that Lotus made a few years back for example.
Possibly, but unlikely. The worst that's likely to happen is a reduction for contributory negligence. Coming back to the original question, there will come a point when the value of the bike is deemed too large to have been carried on the back of a car on a carrier, and the tp insurers will not be liable. That £250K carbon fibre thing that Lotus made a few years back for example.
Not sure the value is relevant as to negligence.
If your bike is fastened securely to the back of your car and someone crashes into the back of you, smashing it to pieces, why do you suggest contributory negligence could be introduced against you if the bike is of high value?
You take your victim as you find them.
If your bike is fastened securely to the back of your car and someone crashes into the back of you, smashing it to pieces, why do you suggest contributory negligence could be introduced against you if the bike is of high value?
You take your victim as you find them.
janesmith1950 said:
Not sure the value is relevant as to negligence.
If your bike is fastened securely to the back of your car and someone crashes into the back of you, smashing it to pieces, why do you suggest contributory negligence could be introduced against you if the bike is of high value?
You take your victim as you find them.
That certainly applies to injury, the eggshell skull principle. But property damage is different. If I drive too close to a car in front, and it has a bike on the back, it is reasonably foreseeable that I might hit it and damage the bike, and will be liable for reasonable damages. But it is not reasonable to factor in that the bike might be work £250K. That is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my negligence. If your bike is fastened securely to the back of your car and someone crashes into the back of you, smashing it to pieces, why do you suggest contributory negligence could be introduced against you if the bike is of high value?
You take your victim as you find them.
If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That certainly applies to injury, the eggshell skull principle. But property damage is different. If I drive too close to a car in front, and it has a bike on the back, it is reasonably foreseeable that I might hit it and damage the bike, and will be liable for reasonable damages. But it is not reasonable to factor in that the bike might be work £250K. That is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my negligence.
If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Ok. So I want to move my £25m Ferrari from storage place A to storage place B. It's a short distance so I drive it myself. Along the way, some noddo in a white van crashes into the back of me, destroying it. His insurer says "Sorry Jane, you are far too negligent, driving around in your £25m car when you should have transported it more carefully. Here's £2500"If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Nonsense.
kiethton said:
Watching with interest as its something I've always thought about.
Is a £9k mountain bike different treated differently to an authentic monet (£m++++) squashed in the boot?
By law third party insurance only has to cover property damage up to a limit of £1 million (plus unlimited cover for death/injury). Most standard policies have a higher limit than that (say 5 or 10 million) - but if you loaded up your boot with Van Goghs then you might find that the bloke who drives into the back of you has a policy which doesn't cover their full value. You can still claim the rest from the driver personally (subject to any arguments about forseeability), but it might take him a while to come up with the money...Is a £9k mountain bike different treated differently to an authentic monet (£m++++) squashed in the boot?
Of course, if you have a load of Van Goghs you probably have insurance of your own to cover them - and your own insurer might have something to say about you driving round with them shoved in the boot of a family saloon.
The limit on cover for property damage might also cause you problems if you caused an accident like this one.
janesmith1950 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That certainly applies to injury, the eggshell skull principle. But property damage is different. If I drive too close to a car in front, and it has a bike on the back, it is reasonably foreseeable that I might hit it and damage the bike, and will be liable for reasonable damages. But it is not reasonable to factor in that the bike might be work £250K. That is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my negligence.
If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Ok. So I want to move my £25m Ferrari from storage place A to storage place B. It's a short distance so I drive it myself. Along the way, some noddo in a white van crashes into the back of me, destroying it. His insurer says "Sorry Jane, you are far too negligent, driving around in your £25m car when you should have transported it more carefully. Here's £2500"If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Nonsense.
Nezquick said:
janesmith1950 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That certainly applies to injury, the eggshell skull principle. But property damage is different. If I drive too close to a car in front, and it has a bike on the back, it is reasonably foreseeable that I might hit it and damage the bike, and will be liable for reasonable damages. But it is not reasonable to factor in that the bike might be work £250K. That is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my negligence.
If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Ok. So I want to move my £25m Ferrari from storage place A to storage place B. It's a short distance so I drive it myself. Along the way, some noddo in a white van crashes into the back of me, destroying it. His insurer says "Sorry Jane, you are far too negligent, driving around in your £25m car when you should have transported it more carefully. Here's £2500"If it reasonable to assume a bike of that value would be carried in a van and properly secured, not on the back of a Halfords bike rack where it could be written off in a quite low speed collision.
The bike owner would have to accept some responsibility, for being so stupid.
Nonsense.
The £25m Ferrari is a different matter. It is reasonable to expect that very occasionally extremely high value cars are driven on the road. If I drive on the road too close to a car, I don't think it's reasonable to say "I didn't know cars could be so valuable." And no contributory negligence by the Ferrari owner.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 5th August 16:32
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well good luck getting £250K from a tp insurer for a bike on a rack, in court.
Judge Judy would say "a bike's a bike" and award £250.TwigtheWonderkid said:
The £25m Ferrari is a different matter. It is reasonable to expect that very occasionally extremely high value cars are driven on the road. If I drive on the road too close to a car, I don't think it's reasonable to say "I didn't know cars could be so valuable."
The point about the 3rd party liability limit above is valid though.Sheepshanks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well good luck getting £250K from a tp insurer for a bike on a rack, in court.
Judge Judy would say "a bike's a bike" and award £250.Car insurance normally cover personal effects to only a couple of hundred quid. You should add your bikes to home contents insurance to ensure they covered for theft, etc. But take care as many home insurance policies will only cover stuff stolen from cars if hidden from sight in a boot, which could be tricky.
But to answer your question if hit then it's covered by their insurance. However, there is absolutely no guarantee that's simple, speedy, or gunna happen so if I were you I'd add to you home contents or get stand alone bike cover, at least you know it's covered.
But to answer your question if hit then it's covered by their insurance. However, there is absolutely no guarantee that's simple, speedy, or gunna happen so if I were you I'd add to you home contents or get stand alone bike cover, at least you know it's covered.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff