Track bike insurance

[Platinum Cycle]

Let me give you the right answer, at least based on what you have said so far.

1) The drunk snowmobiler who hit your parked sled was uninsured. Therefore the coverage for your snowmobile would come from Section 5 of the policy - uninsured motorist, your collision section is not needed for this loss nor would it provide any better coverage availability.

2) Now, you also mentioned the insurer cancelled your policy. This suggests to me it was a "Void Ab Initio" which means the policy was cancelled back to incpetion. IF THIS IS WHAT THEY DID THEY MUST HAVE RETURNED YOUR PREMIUMS AS WELL.

3) In an ab initio situation they are essentially denying a policy ever existed and as such no claim could be made or paid. The one exception would be for a DCPD claim (Section 6 of the policy) but this claim would have required that the drunk guy also have insurance. In your case you weren't this lucky.

4) None of the above however would preclude you from bringing a civil action directly against the drunk sled driver because the accident did not happen on a road. (Side bar - if it did happen on a road you would be unable to bring this action).

5) Lastly, the basis for what I presume the void ab initio (latin for from the beginning - the law loves latin) is based upon is what the insurer perceived to be a misrepresentation on the policy application by you when the policy was written. For such a defence by the insurer to be successful the application must have been signed and the misrepresentation by you must have been deliberate, or something you ought to have known would have affected the rates or decision to insure you. This is also a sometimes tricky thing for the insurer to prove and in your favour you could question what the insurer did to properly ascertain the risk. The duty of care owed by a broker or agent in situations like this is pretty high. In any case, with a little smart advocating on your behalf you could probably have had your claim covered. This is where a good lawyer, who does plaintiff work would come in handy.

[reciprocity]

Let me give you the right answer, at least based on what you have said so far.

1) The drunk snowmobiler who hit your parked sled was uninsured. Therefore the coverage for your snowmobile would come from Section 5 of the policy - uninsured motorist, your collision section is not needed for this loss nor would it provide any better coverage availability.

2) Now, you also mentioned the insurer cancelled your policy. This suggests to me it was a "Void Ab Initio" which means the policy was cancelled back to incpetion. IF THIS IS WHAT THEY DID THEY MUST HAVE RETURNED YOUR PREMIUMS AS WELL.

3) In an ab initio situation they are essentially denying a policy ever existed and as such no claim could be made or paid. The one exception would be for a DCPD claim (Section 6 of the policy) but this claim would have required that the drunk guy also have insurance. In your case you weren't this lucky.

4) None of the above however would preclude you from bringing a civil action directly against the drunk sled driver because the accident did not happen on a road. (Side bar - if it did happen on a road you would be unable to bring this action).

5) Lastly, the basis for what I presume the void ab initio (latin for from the beginning - the law loves latin) is based upon is what the insurer perceived to be a misrepresentation on the policy application by you when the policy was written. For such a defence by the insurer to be successful the application must have been signed and the misrepresentation by you must have been deliberate, or something you ought to have known would have affected the rates or decision to insure you. This is also a sometimes tricky thing for the insurer to prove and in your favour you could question what the insurer did to properly ascertain the risk. The duty of care owed by a broker or agent in situations like this is pretty high. In any case, with a little smart advocating on your behalf you could probably have had your claim covered. This is where a good lawyer, who does plaintiff work would come in handy.

Thanks PC.

Most of this I'm aware of now.

At the time, I was simply expecting that my insurance policy would cover the damages.

No refund was provided, several letters were sent as to why no refund would be given.

I guess when someone pays an insurance policy, they don't expect they would need to hire a lawyer to obtain compensation for damages via a policy they have paid for in good faith.

All the information you have provided is very helpful and hopefully someone can gain from it, I was not in a position to hire a lawyer at the time, I was pretty young and was advised to cut my losses, pay for the damages and carry on.

I guess anyone doing trackdays on their streetbike should retain legal council if something happens to their bike?

How is the average rider/owner supposed to know what they can and cannot do when they are stacked up against the legal dept of an insurance company?

[perception]

Hi Guys.

A buddy sent me this and I am going to call the over the next couple of days. I am just cutting and pasting what he sent me. I hope they are affordable and easy to deal with because I have been looking like crazy for insurance for my track bike and when I disclose that it is for the track and that I only want fire and theft or even just theft they all say forget it if it is a track or race bike.

Jones Brown is Canada's source for motorsports insurance. We do offer off track and storage coverage for competition vehicles and related equipment. The coverage is all risk while in transit, in storage and while at the race track. There is no coverage while operating under its own power.
Please return a completed and signed application (found on our website under the race teams section) for review and quotation.

Regards,
Kevin Besta, CIP
Managing Partner
Jones Brown Inc.
1100-480 University Avenue
Toronto, ON
M5G 1V2
416 628 5320
fax: 416 408 4517
direct 888 379 6821
cell 416 723 8779
www.jonesbrown.com/motorsports"


I hope this helps everyone and myself. Please let me know your experience with them.

[VifferFun]

Let me give you the right answer, at least based on what you have said so far.

1) The drunk snowmobiler who hit your parked sled was uninsured. Therefore the coverage for your snowmobile would come from Section 5 of the policy - uninsured motorist, your collision section is not needed for this loss nor would it provide any better coverage availability.

2) Now, you also mentioned the insurer cancelled your policy. This suggests to me it was a "Void Ab Initio" which means the policy was cancelled back to incpetion. IF THIS IS WHAT THEY DID THEY MUST HAVE RETURNED YOUR PREMIUMS AS WELL.

3) In an ab initio situation they are essentially denying a policy ever existed and as such no claim could be made or paid. The one exception would be for a DCPD claim (Section 6 of the policy) but this claim would have required that the drunk guy also have insurance. In your case you weren't this lucky.

4) None of the above however would preclude you from bringing a civil action directly against the drunk sled driver because the accident did not happen on a road. (Side bar - if it did happen on a road you would be unable to bring this action).

5) Lastly, the basis for what I presume the void ab initio (latin for from the beginning - the law loves latin) is based upon is what the insurer perceived to be a misrepresentation on the policy application by you when the policy was written. For such a defence by the insurer to be successful the application must have been signed and the misrepresentation by you must have been deliberate, or something you ought to have known would have affected the rates or decision to insure you. This is also a sometimes tricky thing for the insurer to prove and in your favour you could question what the insurer did to properly ascertain the risk. The duty of care owed by a broker or agent in situations like this is pretty high. In any case, with a little smart advocating on your behalf you could probably have had your claim covered. This is where a good lawyer, who does plaintiff work would come in handy.

Thanks Platinum_Cycle! That's a great post, and I certainly learned from it myself. I agree with Reciprocity that he never should have had to go through all of this trouble in the first place. I can understand that it is a risk for someone to hire a lawyer when there is a chance that they might not win, and then be out even more money.

[reciprocity]

Thanks Perception,

I'll be calling them as well.

[perception]

Anyone deal with them yet?

[kellen]

also interested

[reciprocity]

Anyone deal with them yet?

I'm still waiting for my quote back.

I'm expecting it to be very high based on the info I've been given.

[reciprocity]

Got my quote back

insurance coverage for 2 race bikes, generator, tools and 20ft enclosed trailer.

Coverage to a maximum of $50k

Premium $600 + tax w/$2500 deductable

[Taternuts]

Got my quote back

insurance coverage for 2 race bikes, generator, tools and 20ft enclosed trailer.

Coverage to a maximum of $50k

Premium $600 + tax w/$2500 deductable

Is that annual or monthly?

[VifferFun]

Is that annual or monthly?

I'm sure that's annual. $2500 is a pretty big deductible, but I guess it is relative to the value of your bikes. If all of the bikes and the trailer are stolen at once, do they consider that a single event (i.e. a single $2500 deductible)?

[reciprocity]

the $600 is annual.

I requested the higher deductable to keep costs down, the lowest they offer is $1500

[VifferFun]

the $600 is annual.

I requested the higher deductable to keep costs down, the lowest they offer is $1500

Did you ask them whether it would be considered a single event if someone hooked up to your trailer and took everything all at once? Would you have to pay multiple deductibles, or just the single deductible? I'm guessing it would be only one deductible.

[reciprocity]

it would be a single event

[VifferFun]

it would be a single event

That seems pretty reasonable then, for $50K of coverage (given it is pretty easy to steal).

[woodzee]

That seems pretty reasonable then, for $50K of coverage (given it is pretty easy to steal).

Hmmm something to definately look into for my bikes/gear, etc.