After being hit by a car a few weeks ago I’ve found myself looking for a replaement bike and insurance.
To insure a bike with a book price of £1,600 my cheapest quote TPFT is £970 with £450 excess but if I go TP it becomes £363.
The difference in premium at £600, plus £450 excess means if my bike were to get stolen I’d effectively recover £550. I’d definitely pay £600 extra premium to potentially get £550 back.
I’d be stupid to get TPFT right?? Is there a hole in my logic, or am I missing something here?
I’d probably go TPO at those costs.
You are unlikely to actually make a claim when costs are smaller too, as it raises insurance for the next 5 years too
My thoughts exactly. I’ll have to declare claims on my car insurance too so claiming is a 3-5 year double whammy for me.
I’m just wondering if I’m missing something here??
When I was running quotes for my old CB500 the insurance agent told me if the premium plus the excess costs more than the value of the bike then it is not worth paying for fully comprehensive or Third Party Fire and theft. Essentially because you’ve already paid as much as you can claim.
Also I don’t know anyone who has claimed when they damaged their own bike by accident. They just ate the cost and got it fixed to save their premium going up the following year.
That looks like the situation you are in. If you go 3rd party only and set the money you’ve saved aside for any unforeseen circumstances you should be all set.
Thank you @Boris and @Joby for confirming that I’m not missing something and that the quotes ARE just ridiculous. Looks like it’s going to be TPO.
I’ll spend some of the saved money on a Pragmasis 19mm to replace my 13mm for overnight use, maybe upgrade my disc locks too and just keep my fingers crossed.