Who pays for a crash?

Hello all. So, I didn't crash (thank god). I actually haven't gotten up the courage to commute on my bike yet as there are no bike paths and I'm nervous about Los Angeles traffic. But a guy at work commutes every day and he was in an accident yesterday. He seemed to have a lapse in concentration or something. He was going down a hill, turned to check for traffic and when he turned back, an SUV had stopped at the red light and he slammed into the back. He shattered the back window with his face and left a big dent in the back of the SUV. He's not a small guy and he was apparently going pretty fast. My boss, who usually bikes to work, was driving and saw it happen. He ended up being fine (just banged up and really embarrassed). But the police and fire trucks and everything came.

My boss and I were discussing it later. How is an accident like that paid for? I assume his car insurance doesn't cover him when he's on a bike. It was his fault. Does he pay cash for the damages? Something you don't really think about until your body is imprinted on the back of an SUV...

Be safe out there everyone!!

If the cyclist was at fault (which it sounds like he was), he is responsible. Auto insurance wouldn't cover the damage. It is possible that his homeowners or renters insurance would cover the damage to the bike, but it would depend on the wording of the policy.

ETA: His homeowners insurance should also have personal liability coverage which may cover the damage he caused to the SUV.

Some bicycle user organisations or racing organisations or triathlon organisations offer bike insurancethat cover you when racing and when you're just "riding around". (At least they do here in Australia) So it may be worth shopping around for your state's bike user organisation and see if they also give you insurance. The user organisations also offer legal advice in the advent of a bicycle related accident.

For home and contents, BF and I had to list our bikes seperatley because any damage done to them anywhere but home wouldn't be covered otherwise.

But if he didn't have any of this then yup he's on his own... Poor guy. I'll be he was glad he was wearing a helmet and I'm bet the SUV driver was glad he wasn't a car!!

In BC, the damage to the back window would be covered by the SUV's automobile comprehensive coverage, but the insurer would likely hold the cyclist at fault and subrogate against him to recover their costs. If he has house or tenants insurance, it will have a general liability coverage which would pay for these damages to a third party's property. (which would cover the subrogation) If the cost of repairs is quite low, he may want to discuss this with his insurance broker in case the claim would raise his rates.

We also have a separate "rider" or schedule of our bikes on our house insurance policy. This covers the bikes that are listed for virtually any damage or loss in virtually any situation. The only one that would not be covered is if I were freeriding or jumping and crashed in such a way as to wreck the bike. Any other incident would be covered, and there is no deductible. Unfortunately, this amount of insurance costs us yearly more than our house insurance, but the peace of mind is worth it.

Amy, you may want to check your own insurance scenario before you start biking to work, and see how your co-worker makes out. Lucky he wasn't hurt!

H&B
~T~

Isn't Ca a 'No Fault' insurance state? If so, then it seems to me that the SUV insurance should cover it. Of course its been a while since I've lived in Ca. so I may be confusing no fault with uninsured motorist.

As far as I know, CA is not, and has never been, a no-fault insurance state. I believe we operate under the modern tort system. Basically, the traffic victim’s opportunity to secure compensation for his/her losses depends
on his/her ability to establish the fault or negligence of the other driver. That driver’s potential liability is backed by compulsory liability insurance, up to a limited amount. Even if the driver is negligent, the victim’s recovery can be reduced to take the victim’s contributory negligence, if any, into account. I'm pretty darned sure we have uninsured motorist laws on the books though!

Things you just don't think about when you think... "Hmmm, I think I'll bike to work!"

The guy who was in the accident is a doctor, so he can swing the bill, but wouldn't that stink... to crash your bike and owe a person $1000 or more!?!

Not sure about Cali, but PA is a no fault state, and when I was hit by a landscaping truck, which left the scene, my accident was covered by my car insurance. I also was given a "pain and suffering" check by my company, State Farm. My rates did not increase, there was no deductible and all of my medical bills were covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michelem

As far as I know, CA is not, and has never been, a no-fault insurance state. I believe we operate under the modern tort system. Basically, the traffic victim’s opportunity to secure compensation for his/her losses depends
on his/her ability to establish the fault or negligence of the other driver. That driver’s potential liability is backed by compulsory liability insurance, up to a limited amount. Even if the driver is negligent, the victim’s recovery can be reduced to take the victim’s contributory negligence, if any, into account. I'm pretty darned sure we have uninsured motorist laws on the books though!

---

All of those points are correct, legally. (For CA).

I didn't think about UM/UIM coverage. Possibly the SUV damage could be covered by that.

I think California is a no fault state...... a few years ago I hit a deer, I was going 75-80mph and did about $5k worth of damage to my car, and that was covered by my insurance. It wasn't counted as an at-fault accident and I wasn't penalized, rates weren't raised or anything.

California is NOT a no fault state.

Perhaps they simply thought your hitting the deer was unavoidable and not your fault. Or perhaps the deer had his/her insurance raised. :) :)

In BC, and maybe in all of Canada, a collision with an animal is covered by comprehensive insurance. A comprehensive claim usually has a lower deductible, and does not carry fault for the driver so there would not be an increase in premium. Fire, theft, being struck by a falling object, the cows eating the paint, etc, would be covered by comprehensive here.

Insurance can be tricky, and is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Everybody ride safe out there, okay?

H&B
~T~

Maybe my insurance company considered it to be the deer's fault (he DID run out into the middle of a highway, I SO had the right of way).... good thing I had uninsured motorist coverage :D

My auto insurance covers me on my bike. Which is weird, cuz if I *didn't* have a car, I wouldn't be able to get bike insurance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by froglegs

I think California is a no fault state...... a few years ago I hit a deer, I was going 75-80mph and did about $5k worth of damage to my car, and that was covered by my insurance. It wasn't counted as an at-fault accident and I wasn't penalized, rates weren't raised or anything.

---

I've hit two deer and it didn't raise my insurance and they paid because they consider it "an act of god" and I had full coverage.