Hit by car: Trapped by bureaucrats, HELP! (Page 4)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Hit by car: Trapped by bureaucrats, HELP! Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2008-09-24 12:03 PM
in reply to: #1692677

User image

Member
381
100100100252525
Subject: RE: Hit by car: Trapped by bureaucrats, HELP!
the bear - 2008-09-24 7:38 AM

MikeJ - 2008-09-24 4:46 AM

the bear - 2008-08-07 11:05 AM It's not reasonable to expect a new bike as compensation for damage to a used bike.

Bear...Ive never thought this before, but in this case you couldn't be more wrong.

If somebody is minding their own business, following the rules of the road, and a numbskull crunches their bike and it is a total loss (which it sounds like the case) then the very least you should expect is a new bike.

There's no legal basis for this line of thought. If you were in a ten-year-old car, and "minding your own business, following the rules of the road, and a numbskull crunches your car and it is a total loss," you would not get, nor should you expect, a brand new car. Why should a bike be any different?

It may work out that way, and the insurance company may give you a few hundred dollars over the depreciated value of your bike just to make you (and ancillary issues) go away, but I'll stand by my original statement that it's not reasonable to expect it.

Glad it worked out in this case, looking forward to the pics of the new ride.



there should be no expectation of a brand new bike. the OP never said he expected that. however, there is an expectation of the person who damaged your property to restore it to its condition prior to their actions. in the case of a car, it is pretty easy to establish what it would cost to replace it and then to actually replace it with a car that is substantially equivalent.

a bike is no different than a car *if* there is availability of the same bike or parts to replace. i suspect you would be hard pressed to find a replacement bike (or even components) that are a direct match. so substantially equivalent is going to be newer stuff. unless the insurance company wants to research whether or not 2008 105 components are similar or better than 2005 ultegra.

also, if the car was a 1969 chevy camaro then the insurance company would be writing a check for what it will cost you to again be in the seat of a 1969 chevy camaro. not the orginal purchase price less depreciation. my point here is not that the bike would have appreciated; rather that they would probably have to spend more money to buy a 2005 look whatever than to just give reasonable compensation so the OP can buy a similar level of bike new.

the speculation no longer matters of course. the insurance company probably did not do much more than they felt responsible for and that is a reasonable indication of how their legal department interpreted their responsiblity.


New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Hit by car: Trapped by bureaucrats, HELP! Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4