Can I use my insurance and the person who hit me to cover my bike?
March 1, 2016 10:55 AM Subscribe
A while ago I got hit by a car biking. The lady who hit me first covered property damage, like bike, helmet, jersey, etc., but the bike was below what the cost was to actually replace my bike. Even thought the bike had less than 300 miles they said it had wear and tear. I ended up getting about 60 percent of the original value that I payed a couple months before. The question I have is, can I also use my renters insurance to cover the bike cost? or can I only do my insurance or her insurance?
Thanks
No, generally you can't claim for a loss on two different policies. You'd be committing fraud.
posted by pipeski at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would certainly be fraud if you got paid more than the value of the bike, but it may be the case your renters policy could cover the gap in what you have already got and the actual cost of replacement. You should call your insurance agent sooner rather than later.
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
You would need to let your homeowner's insurance know about the payments from the driver's insurance. Does your homeowners policy cover replacement cost? If so, it might be worth it. What will happen is that when you say it was damaged in a accident, they will see the driver's policy as the primary insurance but they might pay if there is a difference between what you would get under homeowners and what you got from the driver. What I don't know is if they would only pay 60%, would they allow you collect a total of 100% or only a max of the "actual value" of the bike.
posted by metahawk at 11:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by metahawk at 11:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I worked in insurance. If you notify your insurance company of the portion already covered by her insurance, you are not committing fraud. They may be willing to pay some portion of the difference or they may not. It depends on a bunch of things.
The way to find out is to submit a claim or, at least, call them and ask if there is any point in submitting a claim. They may tell you something like "We would only cover 50%. So, since you already got 60%, it is probably a waste of time."
posted by Michele in California at 11:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The way to find out is to submit a claim or, at least, call them and ask if there is any point in submitting a claim. They may tell you something like "We would only cover 50%. So, since you already got 60%, it is probably a waste of time."
posted by Michele in California at 11:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hi, In 2005 I was struck by a car and broke T12 and my bike. In MA, first it went to their auto insurance, then to my auto inustance - and mine effectively sues them (or takes them to arbitration) for the remainder. I had to lawyer up in the process as effectively at a certain point, I was suing my own insurance. But at the end of the day, I did have a new bike in the mix of everything.
posted by Nanukthedog at 12:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Nanukthedog at 12:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Hi - I'm a professional Bodily Injury liability adjuster ("BILA", but IANYBILA and this is not insurance/legal advice) for auto accidents (including those involving cyclists). I'm also an avid cyclist and very pro-cyclist in general. Not wildly biased, just sensitive to a cyclist's needs and perspectives. Since this situation can be tricky depending on the state you're in and a number of other factors, I sent you a Memail.
P.S. Claiming the same damage under two separate insurance policies isn't necessarily fraud, or what is more often called "material misrepresentation." It's too complicated (read: boring) to unspool here. Again, this isn't insurance/legal advice, it's just insurance information, but an example of something closer to actual fraud would be if he never got the bike repaired with the insurance money, then claimed to be involved in a second accident and presented the still-damaged bike (in its damaged state from the first accident) as if that damage had been caused in the second accident - when in fact a second accident never happened, or if it did there was no new damage, or the damage was in a different place on the bike or a different type of damage - perhaps to just the bike saddle instead of the frame. Saying that pre-existing damages are related to an accident that either didn't happen, or related to an accident that, yes, did cause damages but not the old damages you still have on the bike, is more in the realm of fraud. I say "more in the realm" because speaking in definitive sentences is probably not wise when talking about a general concept. Or, I'm just trying to avoid it being pointed out that there are nuances and exceptions to what I'm describing. Yes, of course there are nuances and exceptions. Want an example? Someone rear-ends you and scratches your bumper. Before you can get the scratch professionally buffed out, some other car rear-ends you again and this time the damage is so significant that the entire bumper - pre-existing scratches and all - needs to be completely replaced. That dumb scratch doesn't matter now. You're getting a new bumper! Yes, probably even if you'd already gotten a check for what it would cost to have the scratches repaired. It is your lucky day.
posted by nightrecordings at 7:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
P.S. Claiming the same damage under two separate insurance policies isn't necessarily fraud, or what is more often called "material misrepresentation." It's too complicated (read: boring) to unspool here. Again, this isn't insurance/legal advice, it's just insurance information, but an example of something closer to actual fraud would be if he never got the bike repaired with the insurance money, then claimed to be involved in a second accident and presented the still-damaged bike (in its damaged state from the first accident) as if that damage had been caused in the second accident - when in fact a second accident never happened, or if it did there was no new damage, or the damage was in a different place on the bike or a different type of damage - perhaps to just the bike saddle instead of the frame. Saying that pre-existing damages are related to an accident that either didn't happen, or related to an accident that, yes, did cause damages but not the old damages you still have on the bike, is more in the realm of fraud. I say "more in the realm" because speaking in definitive sentences is probably not wise when talking about a general concept. Or, I'm just trying to avoid it being pointed out that there are nuances and exceptions to what I'm describing. Yes, of course there are nuances and exceptions. Want an example? Someone rear-ends you and scratches your bumper. Before you can get the scratch professionally buffed out, some other car rear-ends you again and this time the damage is so significant that the entire bumper - pre-existing scratches and all - needs to be completely replaced. That dumb scratch doesn't matter now. You're getting a new bumper! Yes, probably even if you'd already gotten a check for what it would cost to have the scratches repaired. It is your lucky day.
posted by nightrecordings at 7:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older How to replace the U-Verse Showcase? | I suck at whiteboard interviews. Can I suggest an... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2016