Topic: In California is it true I can only get liability on an "old" bike?

[elcid]

AFAIK you can only get liability on old motorcycles. Is this true? If so, what is the cutoff year to qualify as "old"?

[Bob Wessner]

You sure the liability isn't the minimum requirement? I bet Jay Leno has more than liability on his. 

[Steve F]

That's ridiculous.  Like Bob said, liability is usually the minimum, and besides that any insurance company will be more that happy to sell you insurance for anything.  Just show them the money.

[joeb]

Thats what I understand .

[BobbyR]

There are companies that insure "Vintage" vehicles, but there is a catch. Your regular Insurance Company will collect a premium from you and then pay you 'blue book value" on a loss. What s the book value of your bike, probably 0. The speciality company will insure your bike for loss after they have had it appraised and that is what they will pay you for a loss. You will have to do some research to find one of these companies.

[mrbreeze]

That makes sense.

[elcid]

I am so confused. How in the hell do you appraise a 30 year old rat bike?? It is worth next to nothing so why would any other insurance matter?

[kghost]

Elcid bobbyR was refering to members bike which are not "ratbikes" some of the bikes members have here are probably worth in the neighborhood of $25,000 for an original sandcast to $7,000 - $10,000 for an early nonsandcast example.

Now the "blue book value" does not account for a full restoration. Hence the appraisal by a qualified person.

If you have a Rat bike worth O why are you worried about the insurance beyond the legally required amount?

For Example: no insurance company will pay you more that maybe $500 for a 30+ year old motorcycle. The replacement costs for a 4-4 exhaust system can run in excess of $1000. Not to mention the rest of a restored Motorcycle.

Think 55 chevy bel-air. Driven for 50 years its worth what some restoration shop or car crusher will pay. Restored examples can fetch $100,000 at auction.

Discuss with your agent the replacement cost of your bike. If you differ on the value have it appraised.

BobbyR pointed out there are various specialty insurance companies that specialize in insuring restored vehicles. (Personally I think its a safer bet then insuring a new car...other then theft).

[Geeto67]

Elcid bobbyR was refering to members bike which are not "ratbikes" some of the bikes members have here are probably worth in the neighborhood of $25,000 for an original sandcast to $7,000 - $10,000 for an early nonsandcast example.

Now the "blue book value" does not account for a full restoration. Hence the appraisal by a qualified person.

If you have a Rat bike worth O why are you worried about the insurance beyond the legally required amount?

For Example: no insurance company will pay you more that maybe $500 for a 30+ year old motorcycle. The replacement costs for a 4-4 exhaust system can run in excess of $1000. Not to mention the rest of a restored Motorcycle.

Think 55 chevy bel-air. Driven for 50 years its worth what some restoration shop or car crusher will pay. Restored examples can fetch $100,000 at auction.

Discuss with your agent the replacement cost of your bike. If you differ on the value have it appraised.

BobbyR pointed out there are various specialty insurance companies that specialize in insuring restored vehicles. (Personally I think its a safer bet then insuring a new car...other then theft).

A friend of mine once said that any road legal bike (even a rat bike) is worth about $1000. There is no such thing as a bike that runs and drives and is woth $0. NADA has a section on their website that shows what they feel bikes are woth and most "rat bike" (ie low value) still hover just under the $1000 mark. Most specality insurance companies have agreed value which is where you and the insurance company agree on a value and if something happens to the bike you get that value. As long as it is under book value they really don't ask alot of questions.

Concerning NY insurance for a second - NY has this provision which I find offensive (and I am sure other states have this as well). You can buy motorcycle insurance where the insurance does not cover the rider's healthcare in the event of an accident. So all your liability covers is the damage you bike does to other's property. To me this is a useless policy in the sense that the rider is the person most likely injured in a crash and going to be the one who needs the most medical attention. With cars you cannot opt out of this medical treatment but with motorcycles you can. To me this is in effect a useless policy and anybody who buys this is a sucker.

Now if you have a bike that is of low value it is better to not have collision insurance, because the company will total your bike (sometimes for what you think are the dumbest reasons) and the onyl way for you to keep it is if you take a slavage title. However if they insurance company doesn't have to pay out on collision they don't care how bad the bikes wrecked it doesn't affect the title.

[Bob Wessner]

So all your liability covers is the damage you bike does to other's property.

I'm not sure if you are quoting California insurance situations specifically, but the issue of liability can extend beyond direct damage your bike does to other's property. If you, as the motorcycle driver, are found at fault in a situation that causes a car to act in a manner that does secondary damage, or perhaps kills or injures someone, I believe you are potentially liable. It would be interesting if one of our attorney members would chime in on this as to whether it is accurate or not. Also, here in Michigan, I can opt out of medical as I have good coverage on my own. This may differ from California law, however.

[Geeto67]

So all your liability covers is the damage you bike does to other's property.

I'm not sure if you are quoting California insurance situations specifically, but the issue of liability can extend beyond direct damage your bike does to other's property. If you, as the motorcycle driver, are found at fault in a situation that causes a car to act in a manner that does secondary damage, or perhaps kills or injures someone, I believe you are potentially liable. It would be interesting if one of our attorney members would chime in on this as to whether it is accurate or not. Also, here in Michigan, I can opt out of medical as I have good coverage on my own. This may differ from California law, however.

First off I started that paragraph with "Concerning NY insruance"....NY = New York.

Second my issue is not with the coverage to others property and injury (which I lumped into the statement other's property), but with the fact that the rider has no health coverage if he is in an accident. If you have a car accident in your own car your insurance will cover your medical expenses (up to a certain point). If you have a motorcycle accident you are basically on your own as the motorcycle insurance will not pay your hospital bills. A lot of states are jumping on this bandwagon so as to offer really, really low motorcycle rates, but if you don't have health insurance as a back up it is no deal at all.

I guess my only point is that you should not just assume you need the basic coverage, because the basic coverage isn't always what it is cracked up to be. You want a policy that covers your medical bills if you are in an accident - espically if you don't have health insurance. Just a fair bit of warning.

[elcid]

Well all I know is I have had liability only on all 5 motorcycles I have owned since 98. I was told that because they were "older" bikes that I could only get liability. I thought this was some sort of universal regulation. Now I know it is different with different insurance agencies. That answers my question. Well when I something other than a rat bike then In guess it will matter...

[BobbyR]

So all your liability covers is the damage you bike does to other's property.

I'm not sure if you are quoting California insurance situations specifically, but the issue of liability can extend beyond direct damage your bike does to other's property. If you, as the motorcycle driver, are found at fault in a situation that causes a car to act in a manner that does secondary damage, or perhaps kills or injures someone, I believe you are potentially liable. It would be interesting if one of our attorney members would chime in on this as to whether it is accurate or not. Also, here in Michigan, I can opt out of medical as I have good coverage on my own. This may differ from California law, however.

First off I started that paragraph with "Concerning NY insruance"....NY = New York.

Second my issue is not with the coverage to others property and injury (which I lumped into the statement other's property), but with the fact that the rider has no health coverage if he is in an accident. If you have a car accident in your own car your insurance will cover your medical expenses (up to a certain point). If you have a motorcycle accident you are basically on your own as the motorcycle insurance will not pay your hospital bills. A lot of states are jumping on this bandwagon so as to offer really, really low motorcycle rates, but if you don't have health insurance as a back up it is no deal at all.

I guess my only point is that you should not just assume you need the basic coverage, because the basic coverage isn't always what it is cracked up to be. You want a policy that covers your medical bills if you are in an accident - espically if you don't have health insurance. Just a fair bit of warning.

I live in NY also and when I went with Progressive, they did offer me a health and disability rider on the policy. I guess the Insurance companies made te case if you simply slid on some gravel making a turn at 20 MPH you would get hurt to some degree. Remember fair has nothing to do with Insurance Companies. Their business is to collect premiums and invest that money for a profit. They manage risk the same way a Casino does, they always tilt the odds in thier favor.

[Geeto67]

So all your liability covers is the damage you bike does to other's property.

I'm not sure if you are quoting California insurance situations specifically, but the issue of liability can extend beyond direct damage your bike does to other's property. If you, as the motorcycle driver, are found at fault in a situation that causes a car to act in a manner that does secondary damage, or perhaps kills or injures someone, I believe you are potentially liable. It would be interesting if one of our attorney members would chime in on this as to whether it is accurate or not. Also, here in Michigan, I can opt out of medical as I have good coverage on my own. This may differ from California law, however.

First off I started that paragraph with "Concerning NY insruance"....NY = New York.

Second my issue is not with the coverage to others property and injury (which I lumped into the statement other's property), but with the fact that the rider has no health coverage if he is in an accident. If you have a car accident in your own car your insurance will cover your medical expenses (up to a certain point). If you have a motorcycle accident you are basically on your own as the motorcycle insurance will not pay your hospital bills. A lot of states are jumping on this bandwagon so as to offer really, really low motorcycle rates, but if you don't have health insurance as a back up it is no deal at all.

I guess my only point is that you should not just assume you need the basic coverage, because the basic coverage isn't always what it is cracked up to be. You want a policy that covers your medical bills if you are in an accident - espically if you don't have health insurance. Just a fair bit of warning.

I live in NY also and when I went with Progressive, they did offer me a health and disability rider on the policy. I guess the Insurance companies made te case if you simply slid on some gravel making a turn at 20 MPH you would get hurt to some degree. Remember fair has nothing to do with Insurance Companies. Their business is to collect premiums and invest that money for a profit. They manage risk the same way a Casino does, they always tilt the odds in thier favor.

make sure your rider covers health and disabilty. In order to "opt out" of statuatorily required health and disability coverage in NY there has to be a seperate rider refusing it.

For anybody thinking they just need the basic insurance - remember that your passengers are covered under your policy and if you frequently ride with someone it is best to have decent coverage to protect them in case they get injured in an accident also.

I personally don't like insurance companies but I think the minimum liability is just enought to get you into court but never enough to keep you from getting screwed.

[Bob Wessner]

I personally don't like insurance companies but I think the minimum liability is just enough to get you into court but never enough to keep you from getting screwed.

I was told the same thing re: the basic liability. It was recommended to me that in practical terms, I should think in terms of 3X the minimum $$ amount.

[BobbyR]

I personally don't like insurance companies but I think the minimum liability is just enough to get you into court but never enough to keep you from getting screwed.

I was told the same thing re: the basic liability. It was recommended to me that in practical terms, I should think in terms of 3X the minimum $$ amount.

Good points. I carry as much as I can get. You could hit a pedestrian or have a passenger. It is best to carry more than your net worth.   

[John C.]

I live in California and i have all kinds of insurance on my bike. Liability, uninsured motorist (almost a requirement around here), theft, the whole she-bang. I use geico, they were very helpful over the phone. Call Around and ask lots of questions, make 'em work for your business. By the way I ride a 1976 cb750. Is that the kind of old you were talking about?

[BobbyR]

Maybe I will check out Geico. I had them for my cars years ago and they were OK. I have a 78 750K.