Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickt
And what if the tires had nothing to do with the loss? Or I just blow through a red light without even tapping the brakes? Shouldn't "causation" be a factor?  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique427
If tires were not a contributing factor, like a guy blew through a red light and T-boned your car, probably will get paid.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickt
But would just showing causation be enough? Wouldn't the insurance carrier have to show differential causation to deny coverage, meaning not only would they have to show that the non-DOT tires caused the accident but that if I had been using DOT tires I would not have had the accident to begin with? |
All valid points. PLUS, in virtually all cases involving collector vehicles, the owner is required to provide recent photos of the car to show proof of condition and especially to validate the agreed-upon replacement value.
There is culpability on the insurance company if they accept said photos (even with the car wearing Billboards) and still decide to insure thereafter. They had proof and still chose to insure the vehicle. That fault lies on their underwriters and those that ultimately approve to issue a policy.
The above would be cornerstones of my defense in using Billboards and still be covered. Otherwise, I litigate.