Hidden Insurance Wording

Discussion in 'Triumph General Discussion' started by Pete Francis, Oct 11, 2024.

  1. Pete Francis

    Pete Francis New Member

    Nov 27, 2023
    11
    3
    Droitwich
    I was just going to auto-renew with my current insurers as the price hike was only £3 extra this year, but decided to check the details.
    I was alerted by a phrase "You've agreed to not carry a pillion.."
    No, I haven't! It's a touring bike - why would I do something that restrictive? Anyway, no-one's contacted me.

    So, I checked the policy and there it was - policy says I'm insured to carry a pillion. However, the excess breakdown says otherwise.

    Rather than take the risk that a discrepancy in their paperwork might give a get-out clause, I phoned up.

    Yes, it appears I am insured to carry a pillion, but in the event of an accident, the bike is not insured for damage, loss or repair (unless it catches fire or is stolen, in which case my pillion doesn't have a great future either).
    The insurers seem unable to change that limitation.

    Anyone else seen such sneaky discrepancies that effectively change a comprehensive policy into a TPFT policy whilst carrying a pillion?

    Now looking for an alternative policy written in English that a normal person can read. Any suggestions?

    Pete
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Boothman

    Boothman Noble Member

    Jul 26, 2023
    654
    443
    Wigan
    That’s a bit bonkers to say the least - who are you insured with? I assume you are looking for a quote from elsewhere so as to have cover if involved in an accident for you, pillion, passenger and any third party?
     
  3. Pete Francis

    Pete Francis New Member

    Nov 27, 2023
    11
    3
    Droitwich
    That sounds a bit like "proper" insurance.
    Exactly what i'm looking for.
    The Hastings policy was fine except for that one little bit!
     
  4. Boothman

    Boothman Noble Member

    Jul 26, 2023
    654
    443
    Wigan
    Wow that was Hastings - not what you’d expect from a big player like that
     
  5. Eldon

    Eldon Elite Member

    Nov 14, 2018
    6,137
    800
    North Yorkshire
    I had a quote once and read the small print before signing up.
    The small snippet didn't read well where, as how I read it, to wash your bike on your drive you needed to put it back in your garage between bucketfuls otherwise it wasn't insured if you left it unattended :eek:

    I did ring them to make sure I had read it right.

    "Yes I think you read that correctly!"

    o_O

    "Ok, no thanks, as I can only see washing it INSIDE my garage meeting your criteria."

    Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware and all that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. joe mc donald

    Subscriber

    Dec 26, 2014
    14,308
    1,000
    slough / burnham
    Yes last year i noticed they had taken my pillion attachment of. So this year i flew into them as they didn't even mention it. It is now back on there. But if i had of taken Tracy on the bike as i do when she has her car serviced. It would have caused no end of problems. And i have always been fully.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. timboo

    timboo Senior Member

    Oct 17, 2021
    306
    113
    Cambridgeshire
    Mine has a similar clause if I am within a mile of my home, my local shop and pub are all within a mile!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Helmut Visor

    Helmut Visor Only dead fish go with the flow
    Subscriber

    Oct 3, 2018
    6,204
    800
    Three Counties
    Hastings have also just refused someone local to me insurance as they said there was too much risk in the area.........rural Herefordshire :rolleyes::eek:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love You Love You x 1
  9. Pete Francis

    Pete Francis New Member

    Nov 27, 2023
    11
    3
    Droitwich
    I suppose insurers view twisty roads more risky than clogged motorways - which is not where you'll find motorcyclists by choice!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Pete Francis

    Pete Francis New Member

    Nov 27, 2023
    11
    3
    Droitwich
    I did have another look at the wording in my policy, and found a couple of amusing questionable exclusions:
    Loss or damage to the motorcycle while the ignition keys that
    unlock or start your motorcycle have been left in or on
    your motorcycle
    So riding without the ignition key in the lock is fine, but with it in is excluded?
    Loss or damage to the motorcycle while your motorcycle has
    been left unattended with the engine running
    Had an off, so you're no longer riding it, so not covered? Fortunately, most bikes have a tilt switch, so kills the engine when it goes over. Maybe that was an insurance feature rather than just a good idea;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Pete Francis

    Pete Francis New Member

    Nov 27, 2023
    11
    3
    Droitwich
    OK, follow up:
    I raised a complaint, which seemed to be the only way to deal with this, and to be fair, they were quite quick at putting a real person onto it.
    Conclusion after the underwriters had made a response:

    The clause regarding being not covered for keys in the ignition is dependant on the accident circumstances, as its unlikely that someone would steal the vehicle when it is being ridden. Therefore any accident circumstances would be vetted by the claims team and i.e. being pushed off and the bike being stolen, would be covered. However they feel that this exclusion is self explanatory in relation to section 2, the theft of a motorcycle.

    As it's a comprehensive policy, that means that I won't know if I'm covered for damage to the bike until I make a claim and they decide whether or not this clause applies.
    Since every other bike insurance policy I've looked at since, has clearly stated that it's only when the bike is unattended that the keys are an issue, I won't trust this policy, so won't be renewing. Apparently brokers and Which Legal have recounted issues wth dealing with the wording on these policies, so probably best for me to not use them again.

    As for the pillion inclusion/exclusion question:

    They confirmed that you are covered for carrying a passenger. Therefore the clause you are relating to would not be applicable as you have the extra option for carrying a passenger. Furthermore, any excess agreed to at inception of the policy would need to be paid as per the terms and conditions.

    Pays to read the wording carefully :worried:
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...

Share This Page