News...
Don't pedal into insurance potholes
Cycling holidays are growing in popularity and more commuters in cities around the country are now choosing to bike to work.
Given that more than 400,000 bikes are stolen each year - more than 1,000 a day - and that cyclists are involved in 26,000 accidents a year it makes sense to have proper insurance in place.
But cyclists are being warned to check the small print on these policies carefully: many are riddled with exclusions, meaning insurers can legitimately turn claims down.
The most serious of these exclusions involves the wearing of helmets. The Sunday Telegraph recently highlighted the case of a Bournemouth teenager, Janine Clarke, who was seriously injured in a quad-biking accident while on holiday in Greece. Initially her travel insurer, Gosure, refused the claim because she had not been wearing a safety helmet.
All insurance contracts require policyholders to "take reasonable care". Insurers are increasingly using this clause to reject any claim where a cyclist is not wearing a helmet. This not only applies to incidents involving motorised quad bikes but ordinary bicycles too.
This means that if you have a policy that covers injury or accident, the claim could be turned down if you are not wearing a helmet. The insurer does not have to specify in the terms and conditions that you should have worn a helmet, it can simply argue that this was covered in the catch-all phrase about taking "reasonable care".
Similarly, if you are involved in an accident and are claiming damages against a third party, for example against a car driver, their insurer could use this clause to turn down the claim.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers acknowledged the problem. He said although helmets were not an insurance requirement, riders should be aware that if they are involved in an accident with a car then a court may well reduce the damages the motorist has to pay on the basis of "contributory negligence".
Cycling groups have been protesting vociferously against this trend. They argue that as there is no legal compulsion to wear a helmet while cycling, this should not be used as a legitimate reason to turn down a claim, particularly if the terms and conditions do not explicitly state that cover is only valid if a policyholder wears a helmet.
The problem was highlighted tragically two years ago when Provident Insurance was forced to drop a legal case against the parents of a nine-year-old boy badly hurt in a collision with a car.
Darren Coombs suffered brain damage when he was hit by a car while cycling near his home on the Isle of Wight. A claim was made against the driver, who was insured by Provident.
To the disbelief of many cyclists, the insurer counter-claimed negligence against the parents and childminder because Darren was unsupervised and not wearing a helmet. A barrister and CTC (formerly the Cyclists Touring Club) member offered to represent the family in court for free. In the face of this uproar, the company backed down. But without a legal ruling on this issue the matter remains unresolved.
And as the Clarke case proves, the problem has not gone away. The CTC says it continues to lobby strongly against insurers attempting to avoid claims on the basis of no helmet.
Other exclusions that cyclists should watch out for include "mountain biking" and "dirt-track riding".
Kevin Mayne, the director of the CTC, says: "The problem is how you define both these terms. In some countries half the roads are dirt tracks, so again this can be exploited to negate valid claims from British tourists cycling overseas."
There are two main ways of arranging cycle insurance: the first is simply to include the bike as an "add-on" to your home insurance. The second is to buy a specialist policy, available from organisations such as the CTC, British Cycling, regional clubs, such as the London Cycling Campaign, or direct from some specialist insurers - for example Equine & Livestock.
The first is cheaper. In many cases, insurers will include a bicycle on your home contents policy for just an additional £10 a year (although the exact cost will be based on the price of the bike as well as your post-code area).
However, while this will replace your bike if it is stolen and protect you against a third-party claim if you cause an accident, these policies will not provide accident or injury cover. Remember too that if you make a claim, your household premium could rise.
A spokeswoman for Norwich Union says: "Provided bikes are locked in a garage or shed, they will normally be covered under a household policy at no extra cost. But once you want to take the bike out and leave it locked elsewhere, you need to pay an additional premium to have it covered by your householder policy."
Specialist policies cost between £15 and £20 a year for a bike worth about £150. For more expensive models costs do rise. CTC charges £550 to insure a bike costing £5,000. Equine & Livestock charges £186 for a £2,000 model.
These policies typically include up to three months travel per year and many (but not all) also include personal accident cover for free. The policies also generally have far fewer exclusions in the small print.
Most specialist providers also offer additional extras at little or no extra cost. For example, some policies offer a recovery service, akin to motorists' AA cover.
If the cyclist is stranded in the middle of nowhere, the recovery service delivers them to their destination and takes the bike to a repair shop if necessary. This costs an additional £30 a year. Many also offer no-claims discounts and reduced rates for older cyclists.
For more information visit
http://www.cyclecover.org.uk
or http://www.bcf.uk.com or telephone Equine & Livestock
08707 423800.
The Sunday Telegraph 18th July 2004
