Bike insurance (Velovignette) won't pay???

tincyfina · 21 August 2008 07:37

Yes - unfortunately, that's the case. Running a red light is considered grossly negligent (or "grobfahrlässig" in German). The insurer can pay lass or nothing at all if you acted grossly negligent.

For the car insurance, you can optionally add a policy that will cover this (that is, the insurer will still pay if you act grossly negligent) - for the bike insurance, this option doesn't exist.

Consider yourself lucky: gross negligence can carry a fine of up to 10'000 Fr.

peter

tincyfina · 21 August 2008 07:38

not so - running a red light alone is already considered grossly negligent.

Kelva · 21 August 2008 21:35

Thanks dawiz. Do you know this from experience yourself? I've searched the internet and can't find anything which clarifies what constitutes gross negligence in practical terms, and the insurance laws are not specific (as they probably leave it to the courts to decide).

Arahu · 22 August 2008 07:04

Contradictory opinions on this: Crossing a red light is gross negligence says Comparis

http://www.comparis.ch/auto/info/glo...sigkeitsschutz

"Zu den grobfahrlässigen Verstössen gehören unter anderem

*das Überfahren der Sicherheitslinie und eines Stoppsignals,

*bei Rot über eine Kreuzung zu fahren

..." Not gross negligence says this judgement

http://ogbuch.tg.ch/html/000B8C47-38...1A14ED036.html

Die Missachtung des Rotlichts ist nicht zwingend eine grobe Verkehrsregelverletzung (Art. 90 Ziff. 2 SVG) Tricky! Contradicting my earlier postings, I now think that Generali may have valid grounds to partially decline compensation. You would need a smart attorney to fight this.

ggerb · 22 August 2008 07:22

Reminds me of my incident last year, v. similar except for the red light. I hit a car full on after coming out into an intersection thinking it was clear when it wasn't. There was a logging truck partially obscuring my view, although clearly I was in the wrong and caused the accident. Fortuntately for me, Generali forked up no problem and i even got a questionnaire from the police asking for feedback on how they handled the situation! Best of luck.

Kelva · 22 August 2008 12:28

They probably do have some grounds to partially demand repayment, and I'm willing to accept that if a disinterested arbiter concludes I was grossly negligent according to Swiss law. But Generali clearly isn't disinterested and so I don't think I'm being unreasonable in challenging them on it.

Is there some equivalent of a small claims court where issues like this end up? The amounts involved are hardly worth a smart attorney's involvement...

tradle · 22 August 2008 23:02

BTW, one important thing to know: It's not the insurer who decides whether your were acting grossly negligent, but the court or the judge! That's why it often makes sense to fight a conviction for gross negligence, even if the fine is low.

Kelva · 1 September 2008 22:17

Quick follow-up on this subject...

I've been researching it a bit and (as per dawiz) not only is overseeing a red light considered gross negligence per Swiss law, there is a whole littany of other things which is also considered gross negligence, like...

- Failing to yield, pretty much anywhere (stop sign, yield sign, white "stop" line, etc.)

- Speeding / not slowing down enough as per conditions warrant, etc.

- not wearing a safety belt

- using a cell phone w/o handsfree

... in other words, just about anything which breaks a basic traffic rule.

Sooo, I'm pretty much stuffed here. However, I will try to argue Generali down a bit, since there were a lot of mitigating circumstances, and 25% is at the top end of what they can reduce it by even in normal circumstances, as far as I can tell. I found one BGE (114 V 315 under http://www.bger.ch ) which, if I read the German legal-ese correctly, suggest a 10% reduction of coverage for running a red light, and one of the books in the "Ratgeber" series suggests that "in normal conditions", running a red light will result in up to 20% reduction.

So, one last letter to Generali -- I think it must be within my right to insist they provide some sort of "proof" (e.g. BGEs from similar cases, etc.) that 25% is justified in this case.

Meanwhile... be careful out there!

azaler · 1 September 2008 22:44

This is interesting, because Generali holds roughly a 75% share of the vignette market. I don't even know who is selling competitor's vignettes near here but I'm starting to wonder if they would act in the same way if confronted with this accident.