invalidating insurance

Anyone read MCN today, the article about modifying your bike could invalidate your insurance which includes non standard tyres ? Well I think its the insurance companies looking for any excuse not to pay out, now in theory you buy a new bike and you know what are OE tyres, but if like me you buy an 8 year old second hand bike what do you do then ? you have no idea what the OE ones are does that mean I have to ring SUZUKI and ask ? and what if the tyre manufacturer no longer makes them ? just wondered any thoughts on this problem.

Just another sensational scoop from MCN:cool:

I will believe it when it happens;)

according to the article allegedly N.U refused to pay out for just that, would make a change if mcn got anything right though :w00t:

I guess it depends on the circumstances-maybe racing slicks on the road or very different size/profile?

MCN is all doom and gloom. I dont bother reading it anymore.

I get all my bike news from a little website… or something;)

Insewerance companies are well known for trying to get out of paying out if you are claiming from them. But this has to take the biscuit. If I bought a bike with what I considered rubbish tyres on it, then I would change them for something that I felt was more approprite to my riding style etc. Fair enough, race tyres are not for the road, and most actually have stamped on them, ‘Not For Road Use’. If caught with the Not For Road use tyres, you are likely to get a tug from the old bill and penalised anyway.

MCN is “The Sun” of motorcycle publications.

I wouldn’t take it too seriously, but do have a good think about what’s on your wheels. When it comes to a fight with an insurance company, they got endless lawyers on their side to argue the case…and believe me they’re @rsehole enough to try and wriggle out of everything they can…that’s exactly what assessor’s jobs are…find anywhere where the insured has not complied with the very letter of the policy. Any non-compliance, BANG insurance invalidated…some of htem WILL try it…so be careful

And LB is! :wink:

Unexpected veering back on-topic - it’s mods that either affect performance (in an upwards direction!) or increase perceived value (by scrotes) that would seem to count. Most mods that can’t be taken back to original cheaply tend to lower actual value anyway.

I’ve always understood all mods however minor should be declared - even if for no other reason that it will help with ID should the bike be nicked. I’ve never had an increase in premium for any bike, even for performance-enhancing mods (though mine have been minor).

So always inform the, it’s in your interest as well as theirs.

Duty of disclosure is a long (goes back centuries & originates from maritime insurance) & well established element of English civil law.

Basically you ask the insurers for a quote to cover you for something (riding a bike in this case), they ask you for details, calculate the risk based on that info & quote you a price to provide cover (OK, in reality we know they just make up a figure & add a bit more, but play along with me here… ). If you fail to provide full details, then in effect you’re seen as breaching that contract & the insurance company is entitled to avoid the policy - ie. refuse to pay up in the event of a claim.

I know of someone a few years back that had an insurance claim rejected after an accident (no other vehicles involved) because they’d fitted a 150/70 on the back of a GPZ900R instead of the std 130/80, back then this was quite a common mod.

Know of a few claims rejected for undeclared race cans as well.

Oh & just for good measure, it’s also a specific criminal offence to make a false statement &/or withhold information in order to obtain motor insurance.

Does me topbox count ? cos if it does Im f’ked !! I suppose they could be totally anal if they wanted with things like chains, pads all kinds of stuff oh and would my LB stickers be classed as a mod :w00t:

Technically, yes ! :w00t:

I guess it comes down to if you think that insurance companies are friendly laid back people who on discovering a race tuned motor, will smile, ruffle your hair & say “you got us on that one, now run off & play you litle scamp whilst we sort out the payout…” or the sort of theiving lowlifes that will use any technicality they can to wiggle out of their obligations.

The choice is yours ! :smiley:

I always declared the sports screen and top-box on my Vespa - I was told the premium wasn’t affected unless I wanted them covered in the case of a fault claim. Given that they affected the top speed and the stability the insurrer they were clearly relevant to the risk the company were covering.

Think I might phone round a few insurers for a few qoutes to see what they say, might be interesting or a load of ****** :slight_smile:

The only time I’ve heard of tyres being relevant to insurance was when I was asking a fitter “” to fit BT020’s to my 7r - he looked up Bridgestone’s list and said they weren’t recommended for that bike.

“Why is it important?” I asked (esp since it had a pair on at the time).

“Because in the case of a prang, the insurance company may ask the tyre company if they think the tyre could have contributed to the accident. And hearing words like “we don’t recommend fitment” isn’t going to help your claim be settled.”

Makes sense to me, and I guess would cover the race tyre thing etc.

In no way would a court of law uphold that because you changed make of tyre you are to blame? Imagine how many car tyres are changed for a different brand at ATS etc? But if you changed the spec (as in a different size/rating) then fair enough.

I think there are problems sometimes when bikes are launched with a pretty unique tyre - wasn’t the 12R launched with just one make of tyre available for a while ?

I think MCN have sensationalised something that is common sense when you think about it.

Exactly. I got fed up with it cos it was too much of cheap drama.