Lending/Borrowing Bike Insurance | GTAMotorcycle.com

Lending/Borrowing Bike Insurance

S

slow

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
I'm no insurance guru and sometimes all those legal terms are confusing.

I asked my SF insurance agent in simple English and she responded with simple English for my not so inclined brain.

Responses are shown with square brackets.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone seems to say something different about borrowing/lending bikes so I thought who better to ask an insurance question than an insurance guru!

Lets say...my friend has a bike...insured and all that and lends it to me.

Am I legally allowed to ride it? [Yes]
Does his insurance cover me as well (assuming I haven't gotten my own insurance for my own bike)?[Yes]
If his insurance does cover for me, if I get into an at fault accident, it messes up his insurance right? As well as my auto/bike insurance because I have to disclose all accidents right? [Unfortunately Yes]
If his insurance does cover for me, If i get into a non-at fault accident, what happens? [It doesn’t affect his insurance for a not at fault accident but his insurance covers the bike. If you don’t have any auto insurance in your name his policy would cover your injuries if you did have an policy your insurance would cover your injuries only his policy would still cover the bike.]

If I ride his bike (insured and all AND I have my own insurance for my bike), what happens to at fault/not-at fault accidents? [Again his insurance covers the bike your auto policy covers the injuries]

I guess the easier way is to not ride his bike at all, then I wouldn't have to figure out any of this... [Yes agreed don’t ride his bike at all! J Don’t let him ride yours!]

-----------------------

Hope this helps clear up some questions that others might be wondering just like how I was.

I'm pretty sure everyone's policy will be a little different so don't take this as the holy bible.
 
Just to be clear. In simple terms, a vehicle is insured not a person. Whoever drives that (insured) vehicle is covered. As such, claims go to the vehicle, tickets on the driver.

For injuries, the insurance companies first clean out your medical insurance plan if you have one, and then pay out of pocket.
 
vdk said:
For injuries, the insurance companies first clean out your medical insurance plan if you have one, and then pay out of pocket.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Why isn't there a discounted rate on insurance depending on your medical coverage if they use your medical coverage first.
 
AdRath said:
This is interesting. Why isn't there a discounted rate on insurance depending on your medical coverage if they use your medical coverage first.
Click to expand...

If a discount is offered for people with medical coverage, then people without medical coverage would need to be surcharged to make up the shortfall. It seems actuarially feasible, but it would probably never be allowed by the regulators due to the social implications (i.e. it would put more of a burden on people without medical plans, who are typically people earning lower incomes).
 
It's even better when you're not-at-fault and they still clean your plan. And 6 months later you need to pay for stuff that would otherwise be free...
 
vdk said:
It's even better when you're not-at-fault and they still clean your plan. And 6 months later you need to pay for stuff that would otherwise be free...
Click to expand...

Really? That is disgusting... Why the hell would you have to pay for damage you didn't cause with your own benefits.

So far what I see is that in Ontario we have some of the safest roads statistically in NA.

We have insurance that covers their payouts by stealing benefits from the victim.

We have reduced accident benefits due to new legislation

and we have insurance rates increasing massively every year.

What is up? something is very broken here.
 
AdRath said:
Really? That is disgusting... Why the hell would you have to pay for damage you didn't cause with your own benefits.

So far what I see is that in Ontario we have some of the safest roads statistically in NA.

We have insurance that covers their payouts by stealing benefits from the victim.

We have reduced accident benefits due to new legislation

and we have insurance rates increasing massively every year.

What is up? something is very broken here.
Click to expand...

You're missing the PEOPLE aspect. Ontarians (and GTA residents in particular) get very greedy in the event of a collision. If you live outside of the GTA where people are much less greedy, the premiums are much cheaper.
 
VifferFun said:
You're missing the PEOPLE aspect. Ontarians (and GTA residents in particular) get very greedy in the event of a collision. If you live outside of the GTA where people are much less greedy, the premiums are much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's the 'people' aspect he's referring to, isn't he? I was nailed from behind, the driver charged (dangerous) and they went to my benefits to deal with some of the physio....(maxed them out) and because of that, when I needed more physio down the road, I had to either pay full price or pass on it :(

The worst part was my therapist telling me she basically had to fight with the insurance company on a regular basis to continue to give me the treatment I needed.
 
Last edited:
Nyx13 said:
Actually, I think it's the 'people' aspect he's referring to, isn't he? I was nailed from behind, the driver charged (dangerous) and they went to my benefits to deal with some of the physio....(maxed them out) and because of that, when I needed more physio down the road, I had to either pay full price or pass on it :(
Click to expand...

I believe that your insurer should have paid for the additional physio as part of your original claim.
 
VifferFun said:
I believe that your insurer should have paid for the additional physio as part of your original claim.
Click to expand...

Theory and practice are 2 different things.

There is absolutely no reason why your benefits should be used when you aren't at fault. Punish the victim? Is that the way insurance is supposed to work?
 
AdRath said:
Theory and practice are 2 different things.

There is absolutely no reason why your benefits should be used when you aren't at fault. Punish the victim? Is that the way insurance is supposed to work?
Click to expand...

This is more of a claims issue and I'm not sure how that all works out; however, if benefits were not the first to pay out, then you could expect to pay more for your car insurance (since the claims experience used to determine rates would change from the lower net to the higher gross amount).

I'm not disagreeing with you though -- it would be more equitable if people riding/driving should pay more for car insurance so that everyone can pay less for their benefits package. This would benefit people without a vehicle and disadvantage people with a vehicle in the following way:

1.) People who don't own a vehicle would pay less for their benefits.

2.) People who own a vehicle pay more for their vehicle insurance, and less for their benefits; however, the increase to their vehicle insurance would exceed the decrease to their benefits premium.
 
VifferFun said:
This is more of a claims issue and I'm not sure how that all works out; however, if benefits were not the first to pay out, then you could expect to pay more for your car insurance (since the claims experience used to determine rates would change from the lower net to the higher gross amount).

I'm not disagreeing with you though -- it would be more equitable if people riding/driving should pay more for car insurance so that everyone can pay less for their benefits package. This would benefit people without a vehicle and disadvantage people with a vehicle in the following way:

1.) People who don't own a vehicle would pay less for their benefits.

2.) People who own a vehicle pay more for their vehicle insurance, and less for their benefits; however, the increase to their vehicle insurance would exceed the decrease to their benefits premium.
Click to expand...

How it should work is that if you get into an accident that isn't your fault your benefits shouldn't be touched and then the person who is at fault's benefits should be exhausted for you and their insurance company should cover their benefits.

It is beyond rediculous that being the victim of an accident will mean you can't use your benefits if needed for other things till they renew. Its just a clever way the insurance companies have to make the victim pay in the end and cover their losses. As a citizen I should be able to sue for the loss of my personal benefits from the guilty parties insurer or party themselves. Victims should not be put out. Isn't that the entire purpose of insurance and why it is mandatory?

In other provinces with government run insurance do they do the same thing? I don't know the answer.
 
AdRath said:
How it should work is that if you get into an accident that isn't your fault your benefits shouldn't be touched and then the person who is at fault's benefits should be exhausted for you and their insurance company should cover their benefits.

It is beyond rediculous that being the victim of an accident will mean you can't use your benefits if needed for other things till they renew. Its just a clever way the insurance companies have to make the victim pay in the end and cover their losses. As a citizen I should be able to sue for the loss of my personal benefits from the guilty parties insurer or party themselves. Victims should not be put out. Isn't that the entire purpose of insurance and why it is mandatory?
Click to expand...

The Gov't designs the Auto Insurance Product, and the insurance company just price and sell it. f you would like to see a change to the product (such as the order of which insurance company pays out first), then this is something to discuss with the Gov't. I see your points.

AdRath said:
In other provinces with government run insurance do they do the same thing? I don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure off hand, but my guess is that it's the same.
 
slow said:
I'm no insurance guru and sometimes all those legal terms are confusing.

I asked my SF insurance agent in simple English and she responded with simple English for my not so inclined brain.

Responses are shown with square brackets.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone seems to say something different about borrowing/lending bikes so I thought who better to ask an insurance question than an insurance guru!

Lets say...my friend has a bike...insured and all that and lends it to me.

Am I legally allowed to ride it? [Yes]
Does his insurance cover me as well (assuming I haven't gotten my own insurance for my own bike)?[Yes]
If his insurance does cover for me, if I get into an at fault accident, it messes up his insurance right? As well as my auto/bike insurance because I have to disclose all accidents right? [Unfortunately Yes]
If his insurance does cover for me, If i get into a non-at fault accident, what happens? [It doesn’t affect his insurance for a not at fault accident but his insurance covers the bike. If you don’t have any auto insurance in your name his policy would cover your injuries if you did have an policy your insurance would cover your injuries only his policy would still cover the bike.]

If I ride his bike (insured and all AND I have my own insurance for my bike), what happens to at fault/not-at fault accidents? [Again his insurance covers the bike your auto policy covers the injuries]

I guess the easier way is to not ride his bike at all, then I wouldn't have to figure out any of this... [Yes agreed don’t ride his bike at all! J Don’t let him ride yours!]

-----------------------

Hope this helps clear up some questions that others might be wondering just like how I was.

I'm pretty sure everyone's policy will be a little different so don't take this as the holy bible.
Click to expand...

What if I only have liability coverage on my bike and the guy who wants to borrow it has full coverage on his own motorcycle? He has more coverage than me. If there's an accident:
1. would his full coverage extend to my bike?
2. If it's "at fault", is it my (bike owner) policy or his (the rider) policy that gets the claim?
3. Can the other guy buy insurance on my bike? Two policies at the same time on one bike?
4. If there's two policies, would my policy get affected if he goes down against his own policy?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom