Hidden Insurance Wording

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

 

That sounds a bit like "proper" insurance.
Exactly what i'm looking for.
The Hastings policy was fine except for that one little bit!

 

I suppose insurers view twisty roads more risky than clogged motorways - which is not where you'll find motorcyclists by choice!

 

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

 

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