Insurance question, probably for Arry

[MarJay]

Hello,

I've been having an argument with a chap on Facebook about bike insurance. Someone asked on a group how people deal with insuring bikes that are in pieces. Some clever soul said that you should simply not tell the insurer that the bike has been dismantled, and if the parts are stolen then you should just claim for the whole bike.

I argued that the disassembly of the bike changes it's value, and doing this would amount to fraud. He replied with the phrase 'WALOB' which after a quick google I found out means What A Load Of B*llocks.

Can anyone settle this? I guess that if parts of the bike went but you were still in possession of some of it, the insurer would take an extremely dim view if they found out and you had claimed for the whole machine.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Rogerborg]

<spitballing>
If they take the frame and VIN plate, they take the bike.

If they take anything else, and you claim on it, they've left you with the problem of disposing of a frame that's been recorded as stolen.

On the value, I'd suspect that the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole bike.
</spitballing>

Over to arry.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[trevoriv]

If you had a bike in bits would you not sorn it and get laid up fire and theft cover?

I think Rogerborg is right, your insuring the chassis in effect as that's the only connection between how the law id's the vehicle and the vehicle itself so you're possibly not get much of an advantage. Might be difficult to explain how thieves stole the engine, wheels and bodywork but not the frame.

It could be argued fraud as gaining financial gain from a deliberate or reckless misrep but given the low value of bikes and bike premium I doubt an insurer would give it too much thought.
____________________
Past: '96 Thundercat, '02 ZX636R (A1P), '58 KTM 690 SM LC4 Current: '06 ZX636R (C6F)
Mudskipper wrote: Someone just has to sig that...

[Copycat73]

if said bike in bits had no mot. or tax would an insurance policy pay out anyway...
____________________
Whatever I post I have no citation and no intention of providing one..
caveat emptor

[MahatmaAndhi]

Would a bike in bits not be covered by home contents insurance?
Genuine question. I have no idea.
____________________
2008 Aprilia Sportcity 250

[Dave70]

[arry]

[arry]

[arry]

[stevo as b4]

Why would you deliberately have a bike that's been dismantled completely still insured though?

I can see it if you have a taxed and tested bike that you've part stripped for a quick re-vamp or to do a major repair job like fix a gearbox or cracked frame etc.

But most people would sorn a bike that's deliberately going to be a long term project or resto etc, and with no tax you don't need any insurance either.

If your worried about security I'd suggest lumping the value of it in with a garage tools/contents policy, and certainly not telling an insure that it was some motorbike parts that were stolen if you were broken into.

[P.]

[Kickstart]

[MarJay]

I think as long as you tell the truth when you claim there isn't an issue but this guy was advocating fraud basically. He said that insurance was legalised theft anyway so why not rip them off? I'm not sure that insurers and the law would agree!!
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.