I was involved in a hit and run about a week and a half ago. Here's the story since...
I bought comprehensive with a declared value of $4,700 which is lower than market value. With my hit and run, ICBC wants to only pay me $4,700 minus the deductible.
They told me that fair market value is only paid out if the third party is found liable. Then I argued that I only declared a declared value lower than market value because that’s what I wanted if my bike was stolen. I was hedging a bet as I have an older colorful bike. I didn’t think my bike would get stolen so I was trying to minimize my insurance. Then I argued that if I declared higher than market value, they would only pay me market value for the bike in a hit and run! They’re basically saying that they’ll pay the lower of the two (declared vs. market) in a hit and run. Does this sound right? I would like some advice from people that have gone through the process. Thanks.
good luck getting anything above declared. you shouldve just declared higher. you probably wouldve only paid a couple dollars more a month
You gotta lean into it!
That's how it works. Yeah, they'll let you insure it for $20000 if you want, but they sure aren't going to pay you $20000. There have been several threads about this on RevScene in the past too... and yes, they pay you the lowest amount between declared vs market. Declaring it at a value below market is the risk you take to save on insurance... I did that last year too when I declared my 2002 ZX6R at $6500, knowing fully well that if I was to have it stolen or whatnot, that's all I would be able to get back...
If the third party is found liable, they WOULD pay you fair market value for the bike no matter what you declared the value as...?
Here's a kink in the line of thinking:
I only have comprehensive cuz I was willing to lose a certain amount if my bike was stolen. If I caused a collision, I would take the hit in bike loss. A hit and run is classified as a special area of collision. Because I didn't buy collision, I pay a higher deductible. However, if I do not buy either comprehensive or collision, I do NOT have to submit a declared value BUT would still be covered for a hit and run (confirmed with Autoplan broker). What basis, then, would ICBC have for a payout? Well, the answer would obviously be the market value! Then, shouldn't all hit and runs be based on market value?
And in reference to the RS comment, I assume you're talking cars? If so, do you remember submitting a declared value? I know I never did!
I thought if you don't have any coverage and you were involved in a hit and run, you are only covered if they can proof that it was the third party that he you.
Did anyone see what happen?
Yes, there were witnesses that saw the accident but noone was able to get a license plate. There was even a police report (standard in hit and run). In fact, the police showed up to the accident and recorded witness information. Otherwise, I'd be really screwed...
noone else ever been in a hit and run with a write-off bike?