Insurance Dilemma FC vs TPFT

[bikertomm]

Hi chaps, granted I should probably know the drill by now.

Basically looking at getting a 2011 Daytona worth approx £5.5k. I've 5 Years NCB, 23. 3k miles a year (or less). Only reasonable quotes coming back are (unfortunately) with MCE.

Yes I have read reviews, yes they are not pretty.


They can do £360 fully comp with £650 excess. S D & P Inc commuting.

£313 Fully comp £650 excess. S D & P. (I will never commute to work on it really but would be nice to have in-case my car breaks and/or dies..)


OR....


£147 Third party fire and theft.


Next half reasonable company seems to want £650-800+ and their excesses are just as big.

In the past I've gone TPFT because obviously the bike was only worth like £2.5k.


So my question is...

Is it worth paying £360/313 for FC over £147 TPFT?

It's hardly going to break the bank but it annoys me that;

A) It's probably for a policy that won't even pay out anyway

B) Even if they do, it will take years and be lesser value than you want anyway.

I do hardly any miles, and the risk will be minimal it gets stolen etc. I'll always be near it with a bacon roll if I'm not on it.

I'm half tempted to just get TPFT, get my piece of paper to say I can ride it, and stick it to the man! /hetz


Decisions decisions.. Many helps welcome!

Cheers guys.
____________________
07' Honda Hornet now full powaah! My guide on performing an oil change!

[dodsi]

What with all the hit and runs etc and a bike worth 5.5k which would sting if you lost it I would go FC with bonus of riding other bikes third party as part of the policy.

If it was a bike worth £1500 then I would not.

[arry]

Can you afford to splash out for a new one if you totes rek it? Without too much of a heavy heart?

If so, then don't go FC. But the maths of it don't stack up for me here, the 4 grand you'd probably get back from MCE to offset 150 quid extra cover? That's assuming you won't write it off in over 20 policy years.

Yes MCE are crap but play by the book and be patient at claim time and you're unlikely to come to major strife.

[Monkeypony]

The simple question is, could you afford to be without it, if it is written off by a third party?

My RSV4 was written off in January when someone decided not to bother stopping for a red light. I have an idependant witness who has confimed she ran the red (who very kindly completed all the paperwork to confirm this, in a very timely manner) and she admitted running the red at the scene.

I am still yet to see a penny from her insurance company.

However, thanks to being fully comp, I do have a shiny replacement identical RSV4 sitting in the garage, and I was only without a bike for 4 weeks.

If, should the worst happen, you can afford to splash another 5k on a replacement, or don't care about being without it for a time, go TP. If not, go FC.
____________________
Current bike - 2018 H2-SX, 2004 SV1000s, 2016 Aprilia RSV4 RF, 2017 Sherco SERF 300, 2003 Suzuki DRZ400 (stolen - AY53 JUU)

[Monkeypony]

[pinkyfloyd]

I would go third party fire and theft. Speaking from experience what you claim your bike is worth and what you would get if its written off (will talk about that in a moment) are 2 very different things. They offer market value at the base rate and take into account milage, wear and tear etc.

My bike was stolen just over a week ago and the insurance excess was less than the cost of what I would have to pay to fix the damage and I had protected my no claims bonus so I let the insurance handle it. They wrote the bike off.

With an excess of £650 you have to look at the scenario that should you drop it, would be be cheaper to claim and pay the excess/lose your no claims or just fix it yourself without claiming?

Added to the fact that insurance will write the bike off if it costs half of the market value. EG a 4K bike would be written off if they think it would cost 2K to fix using OEM new parts.

All this I looked into over the last week. I had my bike insured for 4.5K and I am getting 3.3K for it.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.

[arry]

[Rogerborg]

[NeverAgain]

Fully comp and I don't need to take long to decide.

If you accidentally stuff it into somebodies' property (car, house, garden) and they're getting paid out, wouldn't it pain you not to add your bike onto that claim too? You've got to declare that claim for the next 5 years if you add your bike onto it or not, but if you're TPFT then you've got to declare it and have a crashed bike at the end of it.

[SophR so good]

Fully comp. Recently had a smash on a similar value bike caused by a 3rd party. I likely won't see a penny for over a year and that's if the 3rd party ever stops lying or the witnesses answer questions. I was very naive and thought I would be ok with 3rd party insurance because I could claim off the person who caused the crash.
____________________
You win again, gravity! - Zap Brannigan, BCF BBQ 2016

[T.C]

[T.C]

[SophR so good]

My problem is proving that it was his fault. My word against his, he says he was indicating, I say he wasn't. The fact he was not in the correct area for turning is immaterial apparently as I was devil-worshipping filtering at the time. Hopefully at some point the lawyers will realise that his story is bollocks as I've pointed out several times (indicating in 5mph traffic for 300 yards = 120 seconds, past 17 driveways of near the same size as the one he turned into. Yeeeh right) but they're not exactly in any rush and don't even seem to care that much, 50/50 is fine for them apparently. If I'd been fully comp I wouldn't be waiting so long, not knowing if I was £2k+ out of pocket and someone else would be stressing about the claim & blame rather than me.
____________________
You win again, gravity! - Zap Brannigan, BCF BBQ 2016

[T.C]

[SophR so good]

Yes and Yes. It's a group called thorneycroft - google brought up nothing of interest so I've stuck with them for now, primarily out of confusion.

It's just that if I'd been fully comp it wouldn't have mattered so much if liability was split I guess.
____________________
You win again, gravity! - Zap Brannigan, BCF BBQ 2016

[T.C]

[Monkeypony]

[T.C]

[M.C]

[Monkeypony]

[M.C]

Err... no, that was probably why. Just read over my accident thread, I think what pissed me off is that they told me (a while) after I could have paid for recovery then added it to the claim.

[Monkeypony]

[M.C]

[trevoriv]

Comprehensive. Nothing is 'fully comprehensive'.

Comp will normally mean your insurer will be more helpful in the event of a split liability claim, if you're tpft or tpo there's not much incentive for them to get involved with your part of a split liab claim.
____________________
Past: '96 Thundercat, '02 ZX636R (A1P), '58 KTM 690 SM LC4 Current: '06 ZX636R (C6F)
Mudskipper wrote: Someone just has to sig that...

[DJP]

£5.5k bike and £315 FC?

FC all day for me.
____________________
Suzuki Bandit 1250
https://deejayp999.atwebpages.com/index.html
That's http not https