New helmet - other party refusing to pay

Hi,

I got rear-ended last year (no huge damage - £1400 damage to the bike, fractured coccyx + minor sore bits). 3rd party admitted liability, went on a police course, and things seemed to be progressing well.
I don't remember anything between feeling the bike (I was stopped at a roundabout) was falling and trying to extricate myself from under the front skirting of the bike. The whole next hour is a bit blank, I don't remember taking off my helmet (so I don't know what I did with it - dropped it, put it down carefully etc), I remember sitting in a witness' car, phoning my wife and starting to cry (!!!), but that's about it.

Carole Nash provided me with legal cover, and when the spoke to me, I said that tho there wasn't any visible damage to my helmet, I'd claim for a new one (£250 rrp - I got the replacement for less) as I didn't know whether I'd hit it and damaged it. I was told that this would be fine. I liked the helmet I had, and the colour scheme, but a new model had come out, so I had to try a few places before I could find one exactly the same as my old one. I bought this, and sent the receipt to the solicitor.
I've just got a letter from the sol saying that the other insurers want photos of the damage to the old helmet. I'll send them photos, but there is no visible damage, so there is an implication that they will refuse to pay.

My current thought is that I could say "well, if you guarantee that my old helmet is fine, I'll carry on wearing it and woe betide you if I get knocked off again and it is found that the helmet was actually damaged previously", but I'm not sure the legal implications.

The sol I'm talking to is petulant at best, but I'll certainly speak to her if I need to.

Any thoughts?

Many thanks

The marking requirements for motorcycle helmets and visors approved to UN ECE Regulation 22.05 states that

Each helmet offered for sale must be provided with the following:
A clearly visible label stating: "For adequate protection, this helmet must fit closely and be securely attached. Any helmet that has sustained a violent impact should be replaced." and if fitted with a non-protective lower face cover: "does not protect chin from impacts." and the appropriate symbol. (Para 14.1.)

It doesn't say that if a helmet is visably damaged it must be replaced, but if it has sustained a violent impact it must be replaced. So therefore your old helmet does not comply with legislation (and therefore would probably invalidate any insurance) despite how it looks.

Conclusion: Damn right they should pay for the replacement!!!

I hope this helps in some way

[Kylie]

What kind of helmet is it? I've a battered Shoei Z-one that I can send you some pictures of?

What does the helmet look like inside? I was told that you can sometimes see the foam compressed inside, especially if foam is painted something other than white but is white inside the foam, as you will see white cracks where it has compressed. Check for that first.

Failing that send a picture of the helmet and find some documentation to send them that states a helmet should be replaced after a knock. For instance I just got this off the Shoei website:
"
Is a crashed / dropped helmet still safe to wear?
Current safety helmets are designed to absorb the energy of an accident by being destroyed. Even a small impact can damage the integrity of the shell or the inner liner. Quite often this damage may be unnoticeable to the untrained eye. Therefore, any helmet involved in an impact should not be used again
"

[timwilky]

When I was offed, I got a full payout for my uninsurred losses of helmet/leathers etc. Easy though as the stuff was only 7 days old and I had the original reciepts.

I would suggest that you reply back that if they are not prepared to replace the helmet (probably expect that you would be required to make a contribution for betterment, as in a helmet is a consumable that should have a lifetime of say 5 years). Then they should be prepared to pay for an xray and report on the helmet state and replace if any defect is found.

Under these conditions I would expect most legal bods would accept that they have a duty to make good your damages and to replace the lid could actually be the least cost option.

Good luck

Originally Posted by timwilky

Then they should be prepared to pay for an xray and report on the helmet state and replace if any defect is found.

Under these conditions I would expect most legal bods would accept that they have a duty to make good your damages and to replace the lid could actually be the least cost option.

My thoughts exactly.....

[timwilky]

Just a bit more on the issue of a contribution towards betterment.

It is a standard tool used by insurance companies to reduce costs. For instance if a tyre needs to be replaced as a result of damage then they could require you to contribute for the percentage of the tyre that is already worn. The same with exhausts or panels on cars with pre-existing damage or corrosion.

Again with leathers etc. They do not operate a new for old. so you may only get 60% of the cost of a year old leathers etc.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Just a bit more on the issue of a contribution towards betterment.

It is a standard tool used by insurance companies to reduce costs. For instance if a tyre needs to be replaced as a result of damage then they could require you to contribute for the percentage of the tyre that is already worn. The same with exhausts or panels on cars with pre-existing damage or corrosion.

Again with leathers etc. They do not operate a new for old. so you may only get 60% of the cost of a year old leathers etc.

Yes, but not much good when you can't get second hand lids though.

Thanks chaps - excellent suggestions.
One reason I went for exactly the same helmet was so I couldn't be accused of betterment - thought they'd appreciate the sentiment.

But I think referring them to standards site and Shoei site is a great idea.

Rgds

Rupert.

Originally Posted by BristolMatt

The marking requirements for motorcycle helmets and visors approved to UN ECE Regulation 22.05 states that


It doesn't say that if a helmet is visably damaged it must be replaced, but if it has sustained a violent impact it must be replaced. So therefore your old helmet does not comply with legislation (and therefore would probably invalidate any insurance) despite how it looks.

Conclusion: Damn right they should pay for the replacement!!!

I hope this helps in some way

Hi Matt,

Could you direct me to where you got this quote from? I've had a look on Google and can't find anything like this. I'm sure it's there - I just can't find it!
(found the Shoei quote no probs)

Many thanks

Rgds
Rupert

[Stingo]

I don't really have any experience in this field but from reading the above, it would appear as though the other party's solicitor is 'trying it on' (probably because the claimant is of the opinion that we all swan around with some piece of junk on our head that cost a fiver from the local boot sale) - definetly worth calling his bluff - I reckon I would in the same or similar situation.

Good luck