Car backed into and dumped my bike just now - what to do?

Forum Sponsor
Robp said:
There's no reason not to file a report. I was "kissed" by a transport truck on the 401 years ago and went to report it. I never called my insurance company, but a few days later they called me. They asked it I was filing a claim and I said to them in absolute plain English that I would not be filing a claim and I reported it to hopefully do something to the stupid truck that hit me. He only pushed in my mirror on my chevette, so it wasn't a huge deal, except for the idiot not being able to drive properly.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me years ago in my car... Reported the collision at the collision centre but didn't want to go through insurance. Next thing I know insurance calls me up and asks if I want to file a claim, saying that it would impact my premiums the same regardless (since they deemed it 50/50).

Also, wasn't there a post from someone that had their bike reversed into just like this and it ended up being covered under his collision coverage, meaning deductible and future rate increase??
 
Sooooooo much terrible terrible advice in this thread. Step one report to the crc. No "what about this or what about that". Just do it.
If it is a hit and run and the offending party is never identified it is covered under collision. Not comp or uninsured motorist. Only collision. The big difference is that it will be listed as a NOT AT FAULT collision claim.
If you don't have collision you're eff'd. If you do than screw it, make the claim. A hit and run is NOT AT FAULT so it won't affect your rates, premium, or insurability.

If you have anymore questions and would like to ask an actual auto adjuster let me know.
 
Once you've reported it at the police reporting centre your insurance company will automatically get notified, some get notified electronically straight away others manually, which could affect your premiums even if you don't claim.
 
Wasted said:
Sooooooo much terrible terrible advice in this thread. Step one report to the crc. No "what about this or what about that". Just do it.
If it is a hit and run and the offending party is never identified it is covered under collision. Not comp or uninsured motorist. Only collision. The big difference is that it will be listed as a NOT AT FAULT collision claim.
If you don't have collision you're eff'd. If you do than screw it, make the claim. A hit and run is NOT AT FAULT so it won't affect your rates, premium, or insurability.

If you have anymore questions and would like to ask an actual auto adjuster let me know.
Click to expand...

I've followed your posts around for the last couple years, along with this other dude in the insurance section and you've both been right. What's up with the common misconception that any claim will be used against you, even if you aren't at fault? I've got car buddies that think if somebody rear ends them their rates would go up! I know that they're completely wrong but where is this b/s coming from?
 
Wasted said:
Sooooooo much terrible terrible advice in this thread. Step one report to the crc. No "what about this or what about that". Just do it.
If it is a hit and run and the offending party is never identified it is covered under collision. Not comp or uninsured motorist. Only collision. The big difference is that it will be listed as a NOT AT FAULT collision claim.
If you don't have collision you're eff'd. If you do than screw it, make the claim. A hit and run is NOT AT FAULT so it won't affect your rates, premium, or insurability.

If you have anymore questions and would like to ask an actual auto adjuster let me know.
Click to expand...

+1. Wish people would just post advice on their experience instead of hearsay or assumptions.
First thing to do is always file a report.
 
Wasted said:
Sooooooo much terrible terrible advice in this thread. Step one report to the crc. No "what about this or what about that". Just do it.
If it is a hit and run and the offending party is never identified it is covered under collision. Not comp or uninsured motorist. Only collision. The big difference is that it will be listed as a NOT AT FAULT collision claim.
If you don't have collision you're eff'd. If you do than screw it, make the claim. A hit and run is NOT AT FAULT so it won't affect your rates, premium, or insurability.

If you have anymore questions and would like to ask an actual auto adjuster let me know.
Click to expand...

WRONG! I had a 100 percent not-at-fault accident which cost the insurance company $4,500. Come next renewal my rates went up $600. They used the claim as an excuse to dig back into my records. They found two convictions for 15-over that were coming off within a couple months after the renewal, and blamed the increase on that. Those convictions were on my record at the previous renewal, but didn't affect my rate back then. Any claim will be an excuse to put you under the microscope. Don't do it unless you really need to!
 
Your insurance company has the right to pull your MVR (abstract) at any time and will do it randomly every few renewals. I pull one on every at fault claim that hits my desk and don't pull one on not at faults. Not to put you 'under the microscope', but to ensure that there were no charges or suspensions at the time of the loss that would void the claim. The way that I see it, you're upset because you got away with 2 years of better rates than you deserved because your insurer didn't pull your MVR.
If you knew how much man power renewals took and what the claims load of an average adjuster is you'd see that no one is snooping thru your entire history every time you have a not at fault claim. Maybe it was random, maybe it was the claim, maybe someone didn't want to explain why premiums went up at a renewal for the 10th time that day and fed you a line.... All I can say is that not claiming a not at fault accident for fear that your rates will go up is not the best general policy.
 
Last edited:
It's a comprehensive claim. You'll have to pay your deductible and your rates will not be affected. If you can manage to get the plate number from a security tape or something then you can get out of the deductible.
 
unL33T said:
It's a comprehensive claim. You'll have to pay your deductible and your rates will not be affected. If you can manage to get the plate number from a security tape or something then you can get out of the deductible.
Click to expand...

A hit and run is a not at fault collision claim.
However, if you can get the other person's info that it can be changed to a DCPD claim and get out of the deductible.
 
So if you have the person's info, it is from comprehensive, but a hit and run is from collision?

How about a windy storm that knocks your bike over -- comprehensive, right?

Okay... so what if you come to the parking lot and you have no clue what happened? There is your bike, laying on the ground with a cracked fairing, bent bars and levers, etc, but you don't know if someone pushed it over, backed into it and knocked it over, or the wind knocked it over. What then? Comp. or collision?

Wasted said:
A hit and run is a not at fault collision claim.
However, if you can get the other person's info that it can be changed to a DCPD claim and get out of the deductible.
Click to expand...
 
Diesel said:
So if you have the person's info, it is from comprehensive, but a hit and run is from collision?

How about a windy storm that knocks your bike over -- comprehensive, right?

Okay... so what if you come to the parking lot and you have no clue what happened? There is your bike, laying on the ground with a cracked fairing, bent bars and levers, etc, but you don't know if someone pushed it over, backed into it and knocked it over, or the wind knocked it over. What then? Comp. or collision?
Click to expand...

If you don't have the info it's NAF collision.
If you do have their info and they are insured it is DCPD

If it is wind or vandalism etc. it's comp
If you don't know, have the police or body shop try and put in writing what they think it is (ie fall damage on one side and paint transfer on the other)

DCPD = Direct compensation property damage which is essentially the not at fault coverage. The reason that you can't use DCPD in this situation (Hit and run) is that there are very specific rules as to when you can and can't use it. The big rule in this case is that the accident must involve at least 2 vehicles that are insured in ON or other jurisdictions that subscribe to the DCPD program. Because we don't know who hit OPs bike we can't confirm that they were insured and can't use DCPD and are left with only collision even tho it is still not at fault.

Please note that I DO NOT work for OPs insurance company!!!!
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm wrong but I've always been informed that if you are not operating the vehicle and it is damaged for any reason, it'streated the same as vandalismm which is comprehensive. I've never gone through it so I could be mistaken. If you were riding and someone hit you then it would be a hit and run collision claim. Best would be to ask insurance but I've always been told if it counts as a collision and there's no one else to pin it on, it goes on your record the same as an at fault.
 
unL33T said:
Maybe I'm wrong but I've always been informed that if you are not operating the vehicle and it is damaged for any reason, it'streated the same as vandalismm which is comprehensive. I've never gone through it so I could be mistaken. If you were riding and someone hit you then it would be a hit and run collision claim. Best would be to ask insurance but I've always been told if it counts as a collision and there's no one else to pin it on, it goes on your record the same as an at fault.
Click to expand...

Directly from the FSCO website:

[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Collision or Upset Coverage:​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This coverage pays for losses caused when an insured vehicle is involved in a collision with another object, including another vehicle, or rolls over. "Object" includes: another vehicle or a trailer that is attached to the vehicle that is covered by your insurance policy; the surface of the ground, and any object in or on the ground.

[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0, width: 100"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Comprehensive Coverage: ​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This coverage pays for losses, other than those covered by Collision or Upset, including perils listed under Specified Perils, falling or flying objects, missiles and vandalism.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/brochures/pages/brochure_autoins.aspx#five

What that means is that if the damage is caused by another vehicle it can be collision and by definition cannot be comp as comp does not cover things already covered by collision.
 
Wasted said:
Directly from the FSCO website:

[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Collision or Upset Coverage:​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This coverage pays for losses caused when an insured vehicle is involved in a collision with another object, including another vehicle, or rolls over. "Object" includes: another vehicle or a trailer that is attached to the vehicle that is covered by your insurance policy; the surface of the ground, and any object in or on the ground.

[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0, width: 100"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Comprehensive Coverage: ​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This coverage pays for losses, other than those covered by Collision or Upset, including perils listed under Specified Perils, falling or flying objects, missiles and vandalism.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/brochures/pages/brochure_autoins.aspx#five

What that means is that if the damage is caused by another vehicle it can be collision and by definition cannot be comp as comp does not cover things already covered by collision.
Click to expand...
Well I don't have collision coverage and I'm still covered if someone else causes the accident so is that mentioned somewhere in that link?
 
unL33T said:
Well I don't have collision coverage and I'm still covered if someone else causes the accident so is that mentioned somewhere in that link?
Click to expand...

[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Direct Compensation - Property Damage (DC-PD) Coverage:​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This section of your automobile insurance policy covers damage to your vehicle or its contents, and for loss of use of your vehicle or its contents, to the extent that another person was at fault for the accident. It is called direct compensation because even though someone else causes the damage, you collect directly from your own insurer, instead of the person who caused the damage.

Note: Coverage under the DC-PD section of your automobile insurance policy only applies if the following conditions are met:


  • the accident took place in Ontario;
  • there was at least one other vehicle involved in the accident; and
  • at least one of the other vehicles is also insured by an insurance company that is licensed in Ontario or has signed a special agreement with FSCO to provide this coverage.
If these conditions are not met, then you can make a claim on your optional Collision coverage (if you have it), whether or not you are at fault. If you don't have Collision coverage, you may be able to pursue recovery from the at-fault driver to the extent you were not-at-fault for the accident.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So you are not covered for hit and run claims as you cannot fulfill the DCPD conditions and don't have collision
 
Wasted said:
[TABLE="class: ms-rteTable-0"]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableEvenRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]Direct Compensation - Property Damage (DC-PD) Coverage:​[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ms-rteTableOddRow-0, bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="class: ms-rteTableEvenCol-0, bgcolor: transparent"]This section of your automobile insurance policy covers damage to your vehicle or its contents, and for loss of use of your vehicle or its contents, to the extent that another person was at fault for the accident. It is called direct compensation because even though someone else causes the damage, you collect directly from your own insurer, instead of the person who caused the damage.

Note: Coverage under the DC-PD section of your automobile insurance policy only applies if the following conditions are met:


  • the accident took place in Ontario;
  • there was at least one other vehicle involved in the accident; and
  • at least one of the other vehicles is also insured by an insurance company that is licensed in Ontario or has signed a special agreement with FSCO to provide this coverage.
If these conditions are not met, then you can make a claim on your optional Collision coverage (if you have it), whether or not you are at fault. If you don't have Collision coverage, you may be able to pursue recovery from the at-fault driver to the extent you were not-at-fault for the accident.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So you are not covered for hit and run claims as you cannot fulfill the DCPD conditions and don't have collision
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will have to investigate this further, then. I was always told it was part of comprehensive so I thought I was good. Also interesting that it only applies in Ontario...
 
Wasted said:
The way that I see it, you're upset because you got away with 2 years of better rates than you deserved because your insurer didn't pull your MVR.
Click to expand...

No, the way I see it is that I don't believe minor tickets resulting from the Toronto & Ontario culture of speed traps in areas with artificially reduced speed limits has anything to do with the real risk assessment the insurance companies need to do. Left lane bandits, cell phone talkers & other distracted drivers pose a far greater risk than people driving at the road's design speed & 85th percentile. To say that I "deserve" higher rates because I have been subjected to a couple speed traps tells me that you may be part of the problem with the industry, not the solution. Maybe you're not all the way over to the Dark Side yet. Please don't let your bosses find out that you don't pull MVRs on all claims. You may be an adjuster, but please remember that you are a human being and a rider as well.
 
Face said:
No, the way I see it is that I don't believe minor tickets resulting from the Toronto & Ontario culture of speed traps in areas with artificially reduced speed limits.
Click to expand...

Say wah? We are the only ones that have speed traps? How about those little towns in the states that generate more than three quarters of their revenue through speed traps.

Listen, I agree with the rest of your post, but that start is complete nonsense. Wasted is right with his comment.
 
Face said:
No, the way I see it is that I don't believe minor tickets resulting from the Toronto & Ontario culture of speed traps in areas with artificially reduced speed limits has anything to do with the real risk assessment the insurance companies need to do. Left lane bandits, cell phone talkers & other distracted drivers pose a far greater risk than people driving at the road's design speed & 85th percentile. To say that I "deserve" higher rates because I have been subjected to a couple speed traps tells me that you may be part of the problem with the industry, not the solution. Maybe you're not all the way over to the Dark Side yet. Please don't let your bosses find out that you don't pull MVRs on all claims. You may be an adjuster, but please remember that you are a human being and a rider as well.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I may not have chosen the best words. I wasn't trying to debate whether the speed limits were adequate, I was only speaking to the way a policy is rated and not whether it was right or wrong. I personally believe that things like expired stickers and insurance slips, even seat belt tickets should not be rated for because they're not indicators of driving habits. but I digress.
I work for a company who's mandate is to always try and find coverage for insureds and use denials as a last resort and wouldn't work for a company who's philosophy was the other way around. It's company-wide that we don't MVR not at faults because like I stated before, we're not trying to catch tickets. We're trying to make sure that the at fault driver had a valid license on the date of loss. I work in one of the most hated professional careers that I can think of so I do get my back up from time to time but there are good guys out there who are truly looking out for drivers and all of my insurance related posts are merely trying to show that.
 
Face said:
WRONG! I had a 100 percent not-at-fault accident which cost the insurance company $4,500. Come next renewal my rates went up $600. They used the claim as an excuse to dig back into my records. They found two convictions for 15-over that were coming off within a couple months after the renewal, and blamed the increase on that. Those convictions were on my record at the previous renewal, but didn't affect my rate back then. Any claim will be an excuse to put you under the microscope. Don't do it unless you really need to!
Click to expand...
You committed insurance fraud and got caught. Lucky you didn't get charged with it (which rarely happens).

I do agree with your opinion on speed traps, though.

I just confirmed with my insurance company although the broker had to confirm because they weren't even sure. Any kind of collision with another vehicle, whether you are operating the vehicle or not, counts as a collision. If you do not have another driver's information you need to have collision coverage to make a claim. Uninsured motorist is different. You still need to be able to identify that motorist. If you cannot identify them, you are not covered even with uninsured motorist coverage. Direct compensation covers you if you do not have collision coverage if there is another identified, insured driver that is deemed to be at fault.

For a bike you couldn't even claim someone tipped it over (by hand) as an act of vandalism because "tips over" is part of collision coverage. Which is stupid. Guess I should've read that closer.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom