ediddy Posted October 30, 2014 #1 Posted October 30, 2014 Yesterday a dealer called me for an insurance quote for a prospective customer. An 18 year old single male with an at fault accident on his record. This is the crazy part. The 18 year old was wanting to buy a Yamaha R1. Why would an 18 year old want a 1000 cc crotch rocket. He would probably be dead in two months. When he got the rate it probably changed his mind. Nationwide had given him a quote of $11,000 per year but I was able to save him some money. My rate was only $10,700 per year. Then his dad wanted to know if he could put the bike in his name and not list his son as a driver. I wanted to say are you crazy. Why would anyone in their right mind want to do that. Instead the dad ought to be telling the son that he needs to get a less powerful bike. If I would insured the bike and not list the son, when the bike was totaled and the insurance company denied the claim the father would be wanting to sue me and cuss that mean insurance company.
BlueSky Posted October 30, 2014 #3 Posted October 30, 2014 One reason to buy older low mileage bikes for cheap and not insure them. Or at least no collision or comp.
etcswjoe Posted October 30, 2014 #4 Posted October 30, 2014 My first street bike cost me $35 dollars a year in insurance.
XV1100SE Posted October 30, 2014 #5 Posted October 30, 2014 My first street bike cost me $35 dollars a year in insurance. You are showing your age ! I don't see why the 'yung uns' want bikes that should be run on track.
Yammer Dan Posted October 31, 2014 #6 Posted October 31, 2014 My first street bike cost me $35 dollars a year in insurance. They had Insurance in the 1800s......???????
Yammer Dan Posted October 31, 2014 #7 Posted October 31, 2014 My first street bike cost me $35 dollars a year in insurance. They had Insurance in the 1800s......???????
Angelo Posted October 31, 2014 #8 Posted October 31, 2014 Yesterday a dealer called me for an insurance quote for a prospective customer. An 18 year old single male with an at fault accident on his record. This is the crazy part. The 18 year old was wanting to buy a Yamaha R1. Why would an 18 year old want a 1000 cc crotch rocket. He would probably be dead in two months. When he got the rate it probably changed his mind. Nationwide had given him a quote of $11,000 per year but I was able to save him some money. My rate was only $10,700 per year. Then his dad wanted to know if he could put the bike in his name and not list his son as a driver. I wanted to say are you crazy. Why would anyone in their right mind want to do that. Instead the dad ought to be telling the son that he needs to get a less powerful bike. If I would insured the bike and not list the son, when the bike was totaled and the insurance company denied the claim the father would be wanting to sue me and cuss that mean insurance company. My wife works for Liberty Mutual and has described this same situation to me no less than once a week. I thought she was kidding the first time she told me about one of those $12000/year policies but it sounds like it's not too uncommon after all.
etcswjoe Posted October 31, 2014 #9 Posted October 31, 2014 They had Insurance in the 1800s......??????? My first bike:
dacheedah Posted October 31, 2014 #10 Posted October 31, 2014 We used to ride to high school and there was a long line of bikes, don't remember any crotch rockets in the 70's but a lot of enduro's and a few kz1000
djh3 Posted October 31, 2014 #11 Posted October 31, 2014 Eddie, I have a friends son who has been riding off and on for the last 3-4yr, without a Mc endorsement. His dad and I both have raked him over the coals on this telling him that should something happen its just like driving with no licence. He could loose his house, cars etc. I my self have been in the insurance is higher than what the car is worth.
winston66 Posted November 1, 2014 #12 Posted November 1, 2014 It really has very little to do with the intrinsic value of the drivers motor vehicle that might get totaled in an at fault situation, however I personally believe that a comprehensive coverage is a good thing if only to ensure that any possible financial liability will be negated in the unhappy situation where the pants, and everything else, can and will be sued off the at fault party . I believe in comprehensive insurances. Cheers, Winston66, Western Australia
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now