Check your Adelaide policy

Hotblack Desiato

I always thought that domestic use would include commuting too, unless it explicitly said otherwise.

If 'domestic' means running a household, without the ability to travel to work there would be no household to run!

Travelling all over the place for business use is something else entirely.

If they should be loading anyone imho, it's the 'fine weather weekend warriors' who have no experience of taking their shiny Ducatis* out in anything less than optimum conditions. The year round workaday rider has to be able to cope with whatever the roads and weather can throw at them.


* or whatever. Don't have anything against Ducatisti just hobby riders with far more money than sense

Skill Magill

Its man vs computer to an extent, as you're talking to them they're ticking the boxes off on the form they have, so its tiik tik tik for them, when you think you're having a normal polite conversation when its anything but. It grinds my gears

nutzbutz

just read this and said must check mine...and i'm not covered.It seems if you say you're unemployed they don't bother their arses asking you do you want commuting..so when i got part time work i've been driving to work blissfully uninsured for the last 3 yrs. Oh and that will be e63.23 for the pleasure of adding it on for the last 5 months of my policy and we hope to have your business next year...lol....So it seems that if your unemployed that commuting is an add-on to your policy, it's the first time i've ever come across that any of my policies...will definately make me think long and hard about renewing with them next year!!

Hotblack Desiato

None of this fills me with any confidence of how they'll act in the event of a claim.

I've been with them the last couple of years but this would make me more inclined to go elsewhere next time. They're no longer cheaper than their rivals either.

Wonda-Boy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

None of this fills me with any confidence of how they'll act in the event of a claim.

And you think that any insurance company are gonna do you any favours if "they" have to pay out......

Nodster

Strange, but when I received my renewal it stated to make sure my details were correct - Name/Address/Occupation etc.

Seeing I was made redundant a few months ago I let them know and hey presto - they dropped €70 off my renewal

CJhaughey

Just got insured again with Adelaide, they specifically asked if I would ever use the bike to commute, even one day a year.
I answered in the affirmative and they have it listed on my policy, no difference in price.
Full comp inc helmet cover for 219, getting old has its pluses!

cantdecide

CJhaughey wrote: »

Just got insured again with Adelaide, they specifically asked if I would ever use the bike to commute, even one day a year.
I answered in the affirmative and they have it listed on my policy, no difference in price.
Full comp inc helmet cover for 219, getting old has its pluses!

It would be ridiculous to send your cage for a service and to own a roadworthy motorcycle, have a license, tax and insurance and have it sit there and not be able to ride it to work that day.

bladespin

Mine was always like that, the ask what it's used for, it's up to you to state that it will be used for commuting.

peckerhead

CJhaughey wrote: »

Just got insured again with Adelaide, they specifically asked if I would ever use the bike to commute, even one day a year.
I answered in the affirmative and they have it listed on my policy, no difference in price.
Full comp inc helmet cover for 219, getting old has its pluses!

I must double-check that, although it sounds like it may be adding a little extra. Is yours the standard RSA policy on their website here? I renewed last year for €179 — exactly €40 less than your quote — but have just checked the cert. to find that all this time I've been covered for "social domestic and pleasure purposes excluding travelling to and from the users place of business"! :eek:

Like yourself, I probably wouldn't use it to go to work more than a handful of times per year, but....

And I'm pretty sure I don't remember being asked anything about it over the phone (not that that excuses me for not having read all the documentation carefully).

Good thing I'm up for renewal at the end of the month! I just hope the €40 difference between the premiums is down to me being a bit older (wrong side of 50) or having a lower-rated bike (1989 CB-1 400).

CJhaughey

peckerhead wrote: »

I must double-check that, although it sounds like it may be adding a little extra. Is yours the standard RSA policy on their website here? I renewed last year for €179 — exactly €40 less than your quote — but have just checked the cert. to find that all this time I've been covered for "social domestic and pleasure purposes excluding travelling to and from the users place of business"! :eek:

Like yourself, I probably wouldn't use it to go to work more than a handful of times per year, but....

And I'm pretty sure I don't remember being asked anything about it over the phone (not that that excuses me for not having read all the documentation carefully).

Good thing I'm up for renewal at the end of the month! I just hope the €40 difference between the premiums is down to me being a bit older (wrong side of 50) or having a lower-rated bike (1989 CB-1 400).

Mines a Dominator so probably a higher risk bike than the CB

peckerhead

Cheers, you're right there. I got a call from Adelaide the other day quoting me €219 to renew, and when I pointed out that it was only €179 the previous year (and that I'd now a third year claim-free) the sales guy said it was down to the commuting exclusion. So I asked him to check what it would cost to lift that exclusion and a few minutes later he came back on and said no, actually, it wouldn't make any difference to the price.

So I asked the question again (why €40 dearer) and this time he said that the insurer's rates (Royal Sun Alliance) had gone up and also that last year they (Adelaide) had waived their usual €30 admin charge, which was not possible now "because of their new system". Distinct smell of BS, rising rapidly...

And now you're telling me they quoted you exactly the same "magic number" for what is almost certainly a higher-rated bike. Hmm. Says a lot about what you can believe out of the mouth of an insurance salesman?

I've asked them to post out the written renewal notification and I think I'll give RSA a call before ringing Adelaide back and calling them out a bit. Don't get me wrong — €219 is not a bad quote, but as I get older I find I also take greater exception to being treated like an idiot by insurance companies...

CJhaughey

I'm no fan of Ins. companies but I think that of them all Adelaide consistently gave me the best quotes for the last 3 years and I rang around them all.
I don't think you'll get much better TBH but I'd love it if I was proved wrong!

phildin

Just adding my 2 cent worth, my first policy quote with Adelaide (2 years ago) was decent and I got them to send out the docs ready to sign. I did a quick scan and it said that commuting was excluded, I phoned up and asked "what if I don't generally commute but just happen to be going to work on that particular day, nudge nudge"? They told me that if I ever go to work on the bike then I'm commuting and not covered. They also said that they were not prepared to cover commuting on my first policy

They had no problem to give me a full refund (I guess that's distance selling legislation) but it seemed like slightly sharp practice. The CN quote I got was a little higher but nothing astronomical and it did include commuting.

From that point, I always specifically ask if commuting is covered.

galwaytt

peckerhead wrote: »

I must double-check that, although it sounds like it may be adding a little extra. Is yours the standard RSA policy on their website here? I renewed last year for €179 — exactly €40 less than your quote — but have just checked the cert. to find that all this time I've been covered for "social domestic and pleasure purposes excluding travelling to and from the users place of business"! :eek:

Like yourself, I probably wouldn't use it to go to work more than a handful of times per year, but....

And I'm pretty sure I don't remember being asked anything about it over the phone (not that that excuses me for not having read all the documentation carefully).

Good thing I'm up for renewal at the end of the month! I just hope the €40 difference between the premiums is down to me being a bit older (wrong side of 50) or having a lower-rated bike (1989 CB-1 400).

tbh excluding travelling to and from the users place of business wouldn't exclude commuting tbh.

Your place of 'work' is not necessarily your place of 'business'. As an employee, for example, you would have only the former, and not the latter..........just sayin' like..........

bladespin

galwaytt wrote: »

tbh excluding travelling to and from the users place of business wouldn't exclude commuting tbh.

Your place of 'work' is not necessarily your place of 'business'. As an employee, for example, you would have only the former, and not the latter..........just sayin' like..........

As a mobile rep that's a nugget. :cool:

CJhaughey

Mine states " permanent place of business" not place of business.

blade1

This is my one.
I didn't ask for anything so this is what I automatically got

Hotblack Desiato

galwaytt wrote: »

tbh excluding travelling to and from the users place of business wouldn't exclude commuting tbh.

I really wouldn't want to try playing semantics with an insurance company over a claim, and certainly not in court.

There is no way you will take these guys and their lawyers on and win in a dispute over the wording of the policy they themselves wrote.

galwaytt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I really wouldn't want to try playing semantics with an insurance company over a claim, and certainly not in court.

There is no way you will take these guys and their lawyers on and win in a dispute over the wording of the policy they themselves wrote.

That's what judges are for: they will go by the letter. And here, the letter fits. He who fights by the word. . Etc

Ins Co's don't phase me in the slightest : went toe-toe with mine last year so not completely Green in that regard. ..

bladespin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no way you will take these guys and their lawyers on and win in a dispute over the wording of the policy they themselves wrote.

Many have, especially on the 'third party' thing, the pillion exclusion and other so called technicalities - judges do not take kindly to the law being used for sharp practice.

Hotblack Desiato

What third party thing?

The pillion insurance exclusion is dubious because the EU insurance directive requires insurance to cover pillions. It doesn't require you to be covered for commuting or any other particular use though so they can exclude that in their wording if they want.

I don't see the point of not getting this put in black and white that commuting is included, especially as people here are saying it cost nothing extra. I don't know myself as my policy with Adelaide has always explicitly included commuting. So arguing whether a place of work is a place of business or not is pointless really. It's up to the policyholder to disclose all relevant information and ensure that the policy covers all required vehicles, drivers and uses.

bladespin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What third party thing?

License/restriction debacle - lots of threads about insurance supposedly being void yet not.

I fully believe in having things clearly defined but wouldn't be too caught up in a policy's supposed restrictions, the courts don't always agree with the insurer's definition of what is or isn't covered. It would be reasonable to assume a motor insurance policy being offered in an open market would cover for the trip to work as long as the vehicle was not used as part of that work.

cerastes

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What third party thing?

The pillion insurance exclusion is dubious because the EU insurance directive requires insurance to cover pillions. It doesn't require you to be covered for commuting or any other particular use though so they can exclude that in their wording if they want.

I don't see the point of not getting this put in black and white that commuting is included, especially as people here are saying it cost nothing extra. I don't know myself as my policy with Adelaide has always explicitly included commuting. So arguing whether a place of work is a place of business or not is pointless really. It's up to the policyholder to disclose all relevant information and ensure that the policy covers all required vehicles, drivers and uses.

So your policy cant say pillion isnt covered? even if it does
and if thats the case, are you covered? have you got a link to this directive (not that I dont believe you) for my own reference.

Hotblack Desiato

bladespin wrote: »

License/restriction debacle - lots of threads about insurance supposedly being void yet not.

There is no contradiction there. If you ride beyond the limits of your licence your insurance is void, but third parties are still covered (the point of third party insurance is that they're not disadvantaged financially by the reckless/illegal actions of others.)
The insurance company can then - if they think it's worth their while, it usually isn't - sue you for what they had to pay out. The point of taking out motor insurance is to satisfy the legal requirement and protect you against being sued by people if you injure them or damage their property. There's no point in taking out a policy at all if you're not going to abide by its requirements and every policy requires you to have a licence for the class of vehicle you are riding or driving.

I fully believe in having things clearly defined but wouldn't be too caught up in a policy's supposed restrictions, the courts don't always agree with the insurer's definition of what is or isn't covered. It would be reasonable to assume a motor insurance policy being offered in an open market would cover for the trip to work as long as the vehicle was not used as part of that work.

Relying on assumptions is never really a good idea especially where the law gets involved.

If the policy says it doesn't cover something then you can either get the insurers to include it, or take out a policy elsewhere. It's the policyholder's responsibility to make sure the policy meets their requirements.

Hotblack Desiato

cerastes wrote: »

So you're policy cant say pillion isnt covered? even if it does
and if thats the case, are you covered? have you got a link to this directive (not that I dont believe you) for my own reference.

The insurance company will have to pay out to an injured pillion, regardless, as the pillion could take a third party claim against you and third parties have to be compensated regardless of your actions (see above).

Now what I didn't say was that you'd then be off scot free - if the insurers then try to recover these damages from you then ultimately it'd be up to a court to decide whether they can. But it would hardly indicate good faith on your part if you took a pillion when your policy said you couldn't or if you didn't have a full licence. I'm no lawyer but I doubt that knowingly breaking the policy wording is going to help you in that situation. Much much better to ensure you never end up in that scenario. Either abide by what your licence and policy say, or get a full/unrestricted licence and get the policy to definitely include the type of riding you'll be doing.

I think what the insurance companies are really doing here is trying to get the policy cost down by discouraging pillions (and therefore, claims from pillions) but in the end if you carry a pillion and crash they're still going to end up paying out.

There was a weird thing in the law a long time ago (40/50 years) that passengers weren't really regarded as third parties. It was possible to get policies that covered third parties outside the vehicle and so satisfied the law, but didn't include your passengers who could sue you if they got injured. This was removed in the UK a long time back but it didn't seem to be here, there was no requirement for insurance to cover pillions until the EU directive came in. At the time (late 90s? IIRC) this was used as an excuse to whack up premiums, until we got more competition in the market.

BTW the first and second parties are the insurer and the policyholder.

The EU directive which introduced compulsory pillion insurance here was the Third Motor Insurance Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31990L0232&from=EN

Article 1

Without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of Directive 84/5/EEC, the insurance referred to in Article 3 (1) of Directive 72/166/EEC shall cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle.

...

Article 6

- Ireland shall have until 31 December 1998 to comply with Article 1 as regards pillion passengers of motorcycles and until 31 December 1995 to comply with Article 1 as regards other vehicles and to comply with Article 2.

So it came into effect in Ireland for pillion passengers in 1999.

bladespin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no contradiction there. If you ride beyond the limits of your licence your insurance is void, but third parties are still covered (the point of third party insurance is that they're not disadvantaged financially by the reckless/illegal actions of others.)
The insurance company can then - if they think it's worth their while, it usually isn't - sue you for what they had to pay out. The point of taking out motor insurance is to satisfy the legal requirement and protect you against being sued by people if you injure them or damage their property. There's no point in taking out a policy at all if you're not going to abide by its requirements and every policy requires you to have a licence for the class of vehicle you are riding or driving.

Debacle, not contradiction, the insurance policy isn't void; The policy stands, right or wrong isn't open to debate but there were several so called experts online who 'decided' policies were void when in fact they weren't.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Relying on assumptions is never really a good idea especially where the law gets involved.

If the policy says it doesn't cover something then you can either get the insurers to include it, or take out a policy elsewhere. It's the policyholder's responsibility to make sure the policy meets their requirements.

As I clearly said, I don't rely on assumptions but a court could decide otherwise, just because an insurance company places something in the fine print doesn't necessarily make it legal.

Hotblack Desiato

bladespin wrote: »

Debacle, not contradiction, the insurance policy isn't void; The policy stands, right or wrong isn't open to debate but there were several so called experts online who 'decided' policies were void when in fact they weren't.

OK you are using the fact that the insurer will still pay out to the third party as evidence that the policy isn't void. They are obliged by law to pay out, but if you've broken your contract with the insurer then they can pay out, void the policy and go after you for their loss.

Whether you call that void or not doesn't matter. You are still at risk of getting sued to recover the third party claim - protecting yourself from being sued for third party damages is the whole point of compulsory motor insurance in the first place.

As I clearly said, I don't rely on assumptions but a court could decide otherwise, just because an insurance company places something in the fine print doesn't necessarily make it legal.

Well, you could risk your house and everything you own on fighting the man on a technicality in court (where many people with good cases end up losing.) Or sort it all out beforehand with a phone call when you take out the policy and avoid the risk.

bladespin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

OK you are using the fact that the insurer will still pay out to the third party as evidence that the policy isn't void. They are obliged by law to pay out, but if you've broken your contract with the insurer then they can pay out, void the policy and go after you for their loss.

Whether you call that void or not doesn't matter a toss. You are still at risk of getting sued to recover the third party claim - protecting yourself from being sued for third party damages is the whole point of compulsory motor insurance in the first place.

You are now assuming that I'm endorseing this as fact, I'm not, just pointing out that just because you would naturally assume something on either side it doesn't actually make it fact - bizarre yes - but true.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well, you could risk your house and everything you own on fighting the man on a technicality in court (where many people with good cases end up losing.) Or sort it all out beforehand with a phone call when you take out the policy and avoid the risk.

Yes, many do unknowingly, your house is never at risk btw (research lol), as said already I'd rather have things nice and clear but (as above) assuming an insurance company writes contract law is a mistake.

Zebbedee

I have an AXA motorbike policy which also states for social, domestic and pleasure purposes only too. So I rang up today and asked if I was also covered for commuting and was told that I was covered as long as I wasn't using the bike during the course of my work.