Insuranse rejects a claim on the basis that e-bike is a motorized vehicle.

[California Flash]

What insurance do you have?

Auto Owners rated A++ (Superior) by AM Best, with headquarters in Lansing, Michigan. They have been in business since 1916.

Home - Auto-Owners Insurance

Auto-Owners Insurance is among the top insurance providers in the U.S., offering a wide variety of discounts and coverages to meet your needs. Contact your local agent for a quote with Auto-Owners Insurance and get quality insurance coverage for your life, home, car and business.

www.auto-owners.com

 

[California Flash]

Auto Owners rated A++ (Superior) by AM Best, with headquarters in Lansing, Michigan. They have been in business since 1916.

Home - Auto-Owners Insurance

Auto-Owners Insurance is among the top insurance providers in the U.S., offering a wide variety of discounts and coverages to meet your needs. Contact your local agent for a quote with Auto-Owners Insurance and get quality insurance coverage for your life, home, car and business.

www.auto-owners.com

Just a heads up to my recent post. I sent a confirming email to my agent who then had several conversations with underwriters at the insurance company I am with (Auto Owners). They have decided that my E-bike will now be insured under my auto policy instead of my homeowners. I will have $100 comprehensive and $500 for collision. The liability would follow my auto policy which is $500,000. I am not sure what the premium will be yet but will post it once it becomes available.

 

[scrambler]

You have to love these insurance companies ....

 

[Pulsar]

An ebike under an auto policy now? Strange. It’s like these freaken insurance companies have no clue where we belong? Have not had in-depth discussions with my Allstate agent on my ebike in a while other than it’s covered under my homeowners personal property coverage with the same homeowners deductible as anything else in my house has.

 

[scrambler]

An ebike under an auto policy now? Strange. It’s like these freaken insurance companies have no clue where we belong? Have not had in-depth discussions with my Allstate agent on my ebike in a while other than it’s covered under my homeowners personal property coverage with the same homeowners deductible as anything else in my house has.

I hope you got confirmation of that fact in writing

 

[Sparky731]

An ebike under an auto policy now? Strange. It’s like these freaken insurance companies have no clue where we belong? Have not had in-depth discussions with my Allstate agent on my ebike in a while other than it’s covered under my homeowners personal property coverage with the same homeowners deductible as anything else in my house has.

My homeowners deductible of $1,000 took that policy option off the table. However I do have full liability coverage per my homeowners policy. State Farm. I have a separate, no-deductible rider for 100% original retail price theft and repair coverage. Same type of policy I would have on a piece of jewelry. Trying it for a year as we travel a lot with our bikes.

 

[California Flash]

I hope you got confirmation of that fact in writing

A copy of the email is stapled to my auto policy. I am now waiting for the premium........

 

[Ken M]

Hi all,
My bike was stolen a week ago in Cupertino, CA I have a home renters insurance from Geico which is supposed to cover personal property theft no matter were that happened, the only problem being is that an adjuster says that e-bikes with a throttle are considered a motorized vehicle and there is an exception for those in my policy. I did some quick research and some articles saying that e-bikes are treated as usual bikes by California law. Can I do anything about, anybody knows?

Just recently had a conference call with the CPSC on a petition I filed that requested a preemption of the 3-class state regulations. They clarified why they viewed that there was no conflict so preemption was not necessary (ie no interestate commerce or product definition conflicts - LSEB vs 3-class). This is going to surprise a lot of people, the ebike industry, and even state regulators but the CPSC counsel stated that an LSEB as defined in HR727 and regulated by 1512 is viewed as the product equivalent of a tradition bicycle. Thus an LSEB can be ridden as a bicycle in all 50 states but this also allows "classified" ebikes to regulated differently. I explained to the CPSC that this "opinion" would eventually lead to legal conflicts but they essentially feel that is the way a final regulatory standard needs to be established.

Note: If you consider that all LSEB compliant ebikes sold in the US prior to the state 3-class legislation were not classified but were LSEB compliant it makes sense. The states were allowed to ignore the necessary grandfather of existing legal products for use by creating a standard that is actually voluntary by the industry to follow as all 3-classes are indeed compliant to the federal LSEB definition. If the industry is paying attention they will soon realize that a better product would be to ignore the classes and ship only LSEB compliant class ebikes to all 50 states - they must be regulated as a bike because federally defined as such.

This was stated opinion by a CPSC engineer and a general counsel member.

 

[JRA]

"all 3-classes are indeed compliant to the federal LSEB definition."

Isn't that with the exception of the 28mph speed limit for Class 3?

From H.R. 727:

"For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph."

You have been veritable dog with a bone in regards to making, or at least trying, to make sense of the laws regarding eBikes here and hats off to you. The folks that have bought the 2nd hand EU regulations here hook line and cranks that PFB, er manufacturers, has put forth in order to make eBike homogenous for the benefit of the fact that all they have to do is send out different charger voltages has always been a sticking point for me.

H.R. 727 is not perfect but for an old law it was pretty prescient. Probably more over 170lb. riders on average though these days.... Not sure many will pay attention in the bike industry to your efforts because their cows are out of the barn behind the Class system that in the end has just cost a bunch of money and muddied what previously were pretty clear waters.

 

[Ken M]

"all 3-classes are indeed compliant to the federal LSEB definition."

Isn't that with the exception of the 28mph speed limit for Class 3?

From H.R. 727:

"For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph."

You have been veritable dog with a bone in regards to making, or at least trying, to make sense of the laws regarding eBikes here and hats off to you. The folks that have bought the 2nd hand EU regulations here hook line and cranks that PFB, er manufacturers, has put forth in order to make eBike homogenous for the benefit of the fact that all they have to do is send out different charger voltages has always been a sticking point for me.

H.R. 727 is not perfect but for an old law it was pretty prescient. Probably more over 170lb. riders on average though these days.... Not sure many will pay attention in the bike industry to your efforts because their cows are out of the barn behind the Class system that in the end has just cost a bunch of money and muddied what previously were pretty clear waters.

Class 3 ebikes are compliant to the LSEB definition in reality. Here's why:

The power ability of the rider determines the speed capability of the traditional bike (ie no cut-off of human ability - a human rode an bike at 33mph for 1 hour so anyone saying 20mph cease of assist makes sense are not really applying critical thinking). That is exactly what Dr. Currie intended when he wrote the definition in HR727. The constraints of 170lb on a level surface set a power limit at and above 20mph. While this might seem confusing to most it would make perfect sense to a PhD electrical engineer. Why would you limit an ebike's speed by a cut-off of assist when power is what had limited traditional bike speed for 100+ years. While some will argue this point they can only argue from a subjective twist. The fact is the CPSC has clarified that there is not an assist limit defined so the constraints only make sense as a power limit at and above 20mph. The 750W rating was a way to allow more power below 20mph to allow utility and cargo bikes (another benefit of having a PhD engineer writing the definition instead of a few employees at People for Bikes doing it while the auto industry is dangling lobby money in front of them).

Each ebike will have a slightly different power needed to sustain 20mph with a 170lb rider on a level surface (efficiency of the drive system, aerodynamics, tire pressure, etc. all impact this a bit) but for the most part takes about 300W to sustain 20mph with a 170lb rider on a level surface. That makes a perfect way to control top ebikes in the traditional bike speed range as going down a 2% slope will produce 22mph without pedaling and a 6% slope will produce over 30mph without pedaling. As defined an LSEB is nothing but a bike that will just be much easier to ride uphills so mainly only average speeds are increased. Few are considering all the factors when they read and interpret HR727 - certainly PFBs and the states didn't when they jumped on the 3-class bandwagon that was more about harmonizing with EU than having an effective policy.

 

[JRA]

I have no problem with eBikes being allowed to go over 20mph and thanks for that explanation which I kind of understand.....

Here in OR we have been holding off the Class laws and our legal watt limit is 1000w which has been used to good effect for the cargo market here and one of the main points of contention when PFB pokes its head in the door once a year.

The odd thing is that Scooters, CPSC, are allowed to go up to 25mph while eBikes are @ 20mph and MoPeds are @ 28 mph but under the auspices of the NHTSA/DOT. It has been pointed out to the relevant parties but the wheels of gov't move slowly here as anywhere unless there is money to be made....or handed out in back rooms.

This is basically where it stands today thanks to my riding buddy Ray and his partners:

The History of Oregon’s E-Bike Law - Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost

The Oregon legislature passed “The Electric Bicycle Bill” (HB 2602) in 1997. It’s now ORS 801.258. The law was proposed by industry representatives to provide legal separation from mopeds which is the legal designation electric bicycles would have been included in without a law change...

www.tcnf.legal

 

[Ken M]

I have no problem with eBikes being allowed to go over 20mph and thanks for that explanation which I kind of understand.....

Here in OR we have been holding off the Class laws and our legal watt limit is 1000w which has been used to good effect for the cargo market here and one of the main points of contention when PFB pokes its head in the door once a year.

The odd thing is that Scooters, CPSC, are allowed to go up to 25mph while eBikes are @ 20mph and MoPeds are @ 28 mph but under the auspices of the NHTSA/DOT. It has been pointed out to the relevant parties but the wheels of gov't move slowly here as anywhere unless there is money to be made....or handed out in back rooms.

This is basically where it stands today thanks to my riding buddy Ray and his partners:

The History of Oregon’s E-Bike Law - Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost

The Oregon legislature passed “The Electric Bicycle Bill” (HB 2602) in 1997. It’s now ORS 801.258. The law was proposed by industry representatives to provide legal separation from mopeds which is the legal designation electric bicycles would have been included in without a law change...

www.tcnf.legal

The fact that Oregon is the highest ebike adoption rate state and still utilizes a slightly less stringent definition than HR727 for a legal ebike is proof that the 3-class system provide no safety benefit and going from one class to 3 does not make regulation more clear as PFBs claims (it was always for harmonization with Europe where the auto industry was successful of neutering ebikes such that they are really limited to how many they will get out of cars - I would argue that 15mph is a joke given that over 3 million of the speed hack dongles were sold before EU cracked down on them). Regulatory capture is so common these days it is almost overlooked as the reason why products like ebikes are attached by big industry the day they become a viable threat.

I challenge anyone that questions that the 170 lb rider weight (was the male / female average weight in 2001) and level surface as a power limit to consider any other way those constraints can be interpreted. I've had people tell me that the PhD Engineer that drafted that definition must have just made a mistake. Sure ... as if he would not understand that power is what has always limited bike speed. He was under direct restriction from the NHTSA that they would not release ebikes as a motorize vehicle if they provided motor alone speeds over 20mph so this definition allows a governed assist past 20mph that on any ebike will return it to 20mph if the rider stops providing additional power. There is NO WAY this interpretation can be logically debated to be incorrect - those constraints have meaning. PFBs can not debate this and trust me I tried many times to discuss this with them (they even got the original clarification from the CPSC that rider + motor could combine for speeds over 20mph which allowed them to adopt the exact definition of a S-pedelec in EU as a Class 3 ebike here).

I don't know if there is a federal eScooter definition under the CPSC but in reality there should be. When one does not exist the states are allowed to establish whatever definition they want which creates all kinds of challenges for producers having to deal with a myriad of legal performance limits.

When a definition does exist such as HR727 (by the way this bill pass a federal law 1 vote short of full house and senate consensus so in reality the states spoke long before PFB used lobby money to get them to adopt a EU harmonizing 3-class system that has done nothing but muddy the regulatory waters and I have done my very best to kill it. The reality is that on a recent call to review my petition the CPSC stated that an LSEB as defined in HR727 is a "bike." That matters and will prevail long term.

 

[Ken M]

My goal is to get one or two ebike brands to add an LSEB mode to their multi-mode products to create a competitive advantage that will need to be matched by others. This will eventually create a conflict at the state level but my guess is that not a single state that has adopted 3-class legislation has written a ticket to anyone riding an LSEB that was purchased prior to 3-class legislation and they are in theory illegal to ride on public infrastructure unless just considered a bike.

The bottom line is that 3-class is an industry "voluntary" system and LSEBs are truly just bikes by federal law. If anyone doubts this I suggest they watch the People for Bikes presentation at the CPSC EV webinar from last year.

 

[Ken M]

I have no problem with eBikes being allowed to go over 20mph and thanks for that explanation which I kind of understand.....

Here in OR we have been holding off the Class laws and our legal watt limit is 1000w which has been used to good effect for the cargo market here and one of the main points of contention when PFB pokes its head in the door once a year.

The odd thing is that Scooters, CPSC, are allowed to go up to 25mph while eBikes are @ 20mph and MoPeds are @ 28 mph but under the auspices of the NHTSA/DOT. It has been pointed out to the relevant parties but the wheels of gov't move slowly here as anywhere unless there is money to be made....or handed out in back rooms.

This is basically where it stands today thanks to my riding buddy Ray and his partners:

The History of Oregon’s E-Bike Law - Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost

The Oregon legislature passed “The Electric Bicycle Bill” (HB 2602) in 1997. It’s now ORS 801.258. The law was proposed by industry representatives to provide legal separation from mopeds which is the legal designation electric bicycles would have been included in without a law change...

www.tcnf.legal

The expressed preemption clause in HR727 allows states to define less stringent requirements like a higher power limit. Considering that I have a 1000W blender for my smoothies it really makes one wonder why PFBs and the EU think any ebike with more than 250W is a bit crazy. The only reason that People for Bikes didn't harmonize with the EU 250W limit is because they knew there would be a much higher likelihood of preemption happening so they went with the 750W "rating" (this is important as it allows highter peaks below 20mph which really provides utility for cargo ebikes).

I'm not sure how PFBs was able to convince the states that the class system was needed for improved safety, clarity, and modernization as it was mostly harmonization with Europe and setting up future registration and insurance of class 3 ebikes as what happened with S-Pedelecs in Europe.

I hope Oregon keeps resisting the class system but if what the CPSC told me holds true LSEBs are considered to be defined as just a bike so the class system is voluntary and compliant LSEBs (ie non-classed but HR727 compliant ebikes can be ridden just as a bike.

 

[California Flash]

A copy of the email is stapled to my auto policy. I am now waiting for the premium........

So, The insurance company has communicated to me that the annual premium will be $309.48. It appears that they have classified my ebike as a moped because of the potential to pedal the bike up to 28 m.p.h. I have complained to this insurance company as to what they have charged to insure my bike on the automotive policy. My standard unpowered Trek 520 also has the potential to pedal to 28 m.p.h. (downhill of course) but it is insured on my homeowners policy. The coverages are actually better than the ebike. For $11.88 the homeowners policy carries a $1,000,000 liability limit, with no deductible if stolen or destroyed in an accident. However, it is only insured for $1,000 where the ebike is insured for $6k.

I doubt that the insurance company will lower the premium for the ebike based on my complaint.

 

[California Flash]

So, The insurance company has communicated to me that the annual premium will be $309.48. It appears that they have classified my ebike as a moped because of the potential to pedal the bike up to 28 m.p.h. I have complained to this insurance company as to what they have charged to insure my bike on the automotive policy. My standard unpowered Trek 520 also has the potential to pedal to 28 m.p.h. (downhill of course) but it is insured on my homeowners policy. The coverages are actually better than the ebike. For $11.88 the homeowners policy carries a $1,000,000 liability limit, with no deductible if stolen or destroyed in an accident. However, it is only insured for $1,000 where the ebike is insured for $6k.

I doubt that the insurance company will lower the premium for the ebike based on my complaint.

After several discussions with my insurance agent and the company underwriter, they continue to insist that the ebike must be insured under my automotive policy as a moped. I lowered the value of the ebike from $6k to $4k to lessen the annual premium ($175.73). I also took all the medical coverage off. Coverage remains the same.....$100 comprehensive deductible, $500 deductible for a collision, and most importantly, $500k for liability in the unlikely event I injure someone and am found at fault.

I would strongly suggest that all members review their coverage on their ebike(s), especially liability. Granted it is unlikely you would injure someone with your ebike, however if you do, and are sued, you could lose everything if you have no liability coverage.

 

[BikeOn]

CA FLASH - thanks for your update. I missed a few of the posts. Did your insurance finally re-imburse you for the stolen bike? I'm also a CA rider with a couple expensive class 3 bikes. I did call my insurance (Safeco) several months back to ask about theft coverage. Particularly if they are covered under auto or house policy. (like if they are stolen from my van). Frankly I don't recall everything they said, but they were covered under something. The agent did mention to me that I could take a separate motorcycle policy for cheap, ($150+/-) if I wanted to, which would cover more. She understood they were e bikes, not motorcycles, but said they allow that. I need to revisit the topic with them. But mostly I wanted to comment on your last comment.... "it is unlikely you would injure someone". The high rise of inexperienced and misinformed e bike riders who weave back and forth, turn left in front of you, children running around and everything else we see on the road - and mostly police and drivers always seem to blame the bike rider... I really don't think it is unlikely. You are right on to know you have coverage if you hit someone, or run into a parked car, or something else. Given the inflation are you sure you want to lower the value? I'll bet it is not that much more money to get better coverage. We live in a high theft state - I had a bike stolen off my bike rack while I was sleeping on the other side of the back door of my van. I had three locks on it. Two were cut, and sadly the best U lock I had only on the front tire. They let the tire and that lock. Now I own SIX expensive and heavy U locks. Sure they can be broken as well, but takes a lot more time. I also hang bells - like Christmas ding ding bells on my bike when parked on my rack so there is no chance of a silent get away. I just weave them in and out so it is a big hassle to get them off. Anyway - hope the best for you and your situation and thanks for sharing!

 

[California Flash]

CA FLASH - thanks for your update. I missed a few of the posts. Did your insurance finally re-imburse you for the stolen bike? I'm also a CA rider with a couple expensive class 3 bikes. I did call my insurance (Safeco) several months back to ask about theft coverage. Particularly if they are covered under auto or house policy. (like if they are stolen from my van). Frankly I don't recall everything they said, but they were covered under something. The agent did mention to me that I could take a separate motorcycle policy for cheap, ($150+/-) if I wanted to, which would cover more. She understood they were e bikes, not motorcycles, but said they allow that. I need to revisit the topic with them. But mostly I wanted to comment on your last comment.... "it is unlikely you would injure someone". The high rise of inexperienced and misinformed e bike riders who weave back and forth, turn left in front of you, children running around and everything else we see on the road - and mostly police and drivers always seem to blame the bike rider... I really don't think it is unlikely. You are right on to know you have coverage if you hit someone, or run into a parked car, or something else. Given the inflation are you sure you want to lower the value? I'll bet it is not that much more money to get better coverage. We live in a high theft state - I had a bike stolen off my bike rack while I was sleeping on the other side of the back door of my van. I had three locks on it. Two were cut, and sadly the best U lock I had only on the front tire. They let the tire and that lock. Now I own SIX expensive and heavy U locks. Sure they can be broken as well, but takes a lot more time. I also hang bells - like Christmas ding ding bells on my bike when parked on my rack so there is no chance of a silent get away. I just weave them in and out so it is a big hassle to get them off. Anyway - hope the best for you and your situation and thanks for sharing!

I have not had my bike stolen. This thread was started by a guy in California who had a Class 2 bike that was stolen and the company that he was with denied coverage under his renters policy.

After I read about his plight I decided to double check what my coverage is. My e-bike was originally insured under my homeowners. However, when I pressed my agent to verify my coverage, I sent a confirming email stating what she said my coverages were under the homeowners policy. This apparently cast some doubt in my agents mind so she contacted the insurance company (Auto Owners in Michigan) to verify coverages. There was a lot of discussion between the agent and the insurance company and ultimately they decided that my e-bike needed to be covered under my auto policy. My biggest concern was how I was protected for liability. So with my e-bike listed on my auto policy I have $500k coverage for liability, $100 for comprehensive and $500 for collision.

I also have two other non powered bicycles that are covered under my homeowners policy.

I lowered my stated value on the e-bike because in the event of a collision they are not going to pay $6k if the bike is a total loss. They will depreciate the e-bike just like they depreciate automobiles in the event of a claim. Lowering the value saved my quite a bit of money along with eliminating the medical coverage as I am on Social Security and have excellent medical coverage through Blue Care Network.

For me it is very unlikely that I would have a collision and injure someone. I live in a small town and nearly all of my riding is on lightly traveled country roads. However, you still need to have liability protection in the event you do have an accident and injure someone. It only makes good sense to protect yourself from lawsuits.

Just to be clear, I live in Michigan, not California.

I earned the nickname "California Flash" because when I was 19 I drove my 59 Chevy from Lansing, Michigan to Azuza, California in 38 hours. This was before freeways.

I would ask your agent specific questions about how your e-bikes are covered and get the answers in Writing!

 

[BikeOn]

Got it - enjoy your riding.

 

[m@Robertson]

Just a heads up to my recent post. I sent a confirming email to my agent who then had several conversations with underwriters at the insurance company I am with (Auto Owners). They have decided that my E-bike will now be insured under my auto policy instead of my homeowners. I will have $100 comprehensive and $500 for collision. The liability would follow my auto policy which is $500,000. I am not sure what the premium will be yet but will post it once it becomes available.

This is why I ALWAYS tell people not to trust what their agent tells them about esoteric insurance coverage questions and to ALWAYS get the answer from an underwriter.

The agent is doing his/her best, but their opinion on coverage is not binding on the insurance company. If an agent tells you X and that turns out not to be true, its not the Company's mistake and you are left with suing the agent's Errors & Omissions (malpractice) policy to recover the damages they said you were covered from. Not an ideal situation at all. And if the argument comes forward that the agent is a representative of the carrier and thus the carrier is bound by the agent's word on the matter, this is generally not upheld in court, except when the 'agent' is actually an employee of a direct writer like GEICO. For an independent agent... your only recourse is the E&O policy and a lawsuit against your agent.

In this case it sounds as if the insurance company is making a genuine attempt to make this right and keep the agent from having to eat crow. After all, an endorsement was written and premium was paid, but I bet what happened was they were not contemplating the 'e' in ebike when the company created the endorsement that the agent used, and they want to try and actually do the customer right.

I am a licensed agent in Michigan and done quite a bit of work there on policy language and especially with their very extensive PIP reforms and MCCA changes... @California Flash I suspect you know that if this was pre-MCCA reform of like a year ago you would be charged the full MCCA fee of over $200 in addition to the actual insurance cost. You formerly did not have the option to reject medical to get out of the MCCA charge, or what is now known as the MCCA Deficit charge that is (for now) $0.

By the way, something few Michigan consumers take advantage of is dropping their PIP from Unlimited to any lower number, which can be as high as $500,000. Doing so saves you $100 per vehicle as when you take ANY of the lower limits, you become exempt from the $100 (this year) MCCA fee. Of course, look at all of your coverages carefully before selecting a lower limit... but the rest of the USA gets by just fine with lesser limits.

Writing a bicycle on an auto policy as a moped is problematic at best. I would look at your policy VERY carefully to see how 'moped' is defined and ensure your bike actually fits the definition. However... I have to say the price they are charging you is more than competitive. BUT as you noted, the policy uses either Actual Cash Value or Stated Value and both involve depreciation. The benefit of a Markel/dedicated bicycle policy from Velosurance is they don't take advantage of the escape clause in Stated Value and instead treat it as an Agreed Value. Something to consider.