Do GY Billboards void your insurance?

[patrickt]

I've had a couple of different policies on my Cobra; none have had an exclusion based on non-DOT parts. But, one of them had a "youthful operator" exclusion for operators under 25 years of age. All had permitted user coverage. Sooooo, if I lent my Cobra to a blind man, who subsequently wrecked my car, I would have been covered, unless the man was under 25, then I wouldn't. That's the insurance biz for you....

Originally Posted by Mark IV

Do you think the insurance company not to mention the other parties attorneys are not going to look at every little detail, like say the "not for highway use" molded in the sidewall?

The other parties' attorneys will be on your side. They want you to be covered by insurance. Actually you're more likely to get screwed by your insurance carrier over little claims, as opposed to the big ones. If you think it through, you'll figure out why.

[G-Pete]

Well, do you want to be the guy who sit in court and the parents point at you and say this is the guy who hurt our child and he could not stop because of his illegal street use tires. And he knew about it and installed them anyway regardless of life and property.

At that point you better have a $5k suit attorney to keep you out of prison....but you will lose House, Henn House and Outhouse. The attorney took already your retirement fund.

[REAL 1]

Whether it confused me or not is not the issue. If you feel that confident in your reading of your policy then don't confirm it in writing then. Up to you.

I would confirm coverage in writhing and did. That's my advice. By all means feel free to reject my advice.

[patrickt]

Well, alright. I won't belabor the point, but it absolutely astounds me that you don't feel confident in your ability to interpret a simple auto policy.

[G-Pete]

Even a law professional (6 year law school) is not sure about that subject. My understanding is, if you come to court you have to have "clean hands" if you knew the vehicle was unsafe and illegally operated on the road = you have lost the case.

It is your duty as owner/operator you do everything in you power to avoid harm to others while participating in traffic. That is the law and it is the same law in every state because it's federal.

Only obeying the law, protect you from a lawsuit disaster. Not a simple letter from your insurance which underlines you broke willingly and deliberately the law and can be used as evidence against you.

The BB look good - but they are not safe for road use. Good Year stated that clearly on their website.


PS: I really would like to see these particular letters, without pics ain't happened - that's the common saying around here, right?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by G-Pete

Even a law professional (6 year law school) is not sure about that subject. My understanding is, if you come to court you have to have "clean hands" if you knew the vehicle was unsafe and illegally operated on the road = you have lost the case.

It is your duty as owner/operator you do everything in you power to avoid harm to others while participating in traffic. That is the law and it is the same law in every state because it's federal.

Only obeying the law, protect you from a lawsuit disaster. Not a simple letter from your insurance which underlines you broke willingly and deliberately the law and can be used as evidence against you.

The BB look good - but they are not safe for road use. Good Year stated that clearly on their website.

Gee Pete, do you think there's any chance in the world that you might be wrong on all of that?

[joyridin']

Originally Posted by patrickt

Gee Pete, do you think there's any chance in the world that you might be wrong on all of that?

No, he is probably correct. A friend just had his insurance company pay out $100k in medical and other BS stuff to a guy who was driving with no license, no insurance, and fake plates. He ran a red light and my friend hit him.

Comment from the idiotic judge "your insurance will cover him, so don't worry about it".

In this day and age, ignorance is bliss.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Well, alright. I won't belabor the point, but it absolutely astounds me that you don't feel confident in your ability to interpret a simple auto policy.

Oh, I can read it and interpret it but I want to make sure the other guy interprets it the same way before there is problem and get it in writing. If you are comfortable with your reading and interpretation don't bother following my suggestion. No problem. Not all of us are as legally sharp or savvy as you...even us lawyers .

Non of these cars are DOT approved for street use more less BB tires.

Where does the Goodyear site say the BB's are "unsafe" for street use as opposed to not "DOT approved for street use"? There may be/is a difference.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Not all of us are as legally sharp or savvy as you...even us lawyers .

Well dang, I can't ask for any more than that.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by patrickt

No, I'm overpaid because of my surly good looks.

Originally Posted by patrickt

Well dang, I can't ask for any more than that.

Of course you can my dear boy, he left off your surly good looks.

Thanks for your clarification.
I'll be sticking with avons.

[Thor maine]

This is the problem , the insurance company will pay liability But if they know you had non DOT tires on (if they pick that up) they will make a motion to vacate the policy under "Willful Disregard"and leave you holding the bag. Now a judge probably would not do that unless you had substantial assets. If you did kiss them goodbye. Now say you are responsible for some horrific accident property damage and injuries and loss of life and the claims exceed your policy coverage the judge will determine if the big awards will stand or a more appropriate amount, how do you think the "Willful Disregard " from the non street tires is going to play out????? In you favor or against you????

[Thor maine]

That's the comprehensive part, but what about your liability to the victims of an accident that was your vault when you were running illegal tires? That "willful Disregard" part is not just going to bite you in the ass it going to tear your ass right off.

[DAVID GAGNARD]

Originally Posted by Thor maine

That's the comprehensive part, but what about your liability to the victims of an accident that was your vault when you were running illegal tires? That "willful Disregard" part is not just going to bite you in the ass it going to tear your ass right off.

Yes it can,no argument there,but,again,can anyone site a case were the insurer used this argument to not pay on a claim?????

David

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

Yes it can,no argument there,but,again,can anyone site a case were the insurer used this argument to not pay on a claim?????

David

Yes!

Details: Sometime ago dad had a 1970s Chrysler Valiant, driving one day in light rain dad ran up the back of a Toyota, after slipping on the tram (light-rail) tracks.
The damage done was light a tail light cluster and rear bumper for the Toyota and a spit polish for the bumper on the Valiant.

This incident happend in the 90s, car was about 20-25 years old at the time. Dad was comprehensively insured. He was left holding the bill, just under $1000 as the insurance company refused to pay the claim. Reason quoted: the nuts on the wheels weren't original oem. We argued the point to deaf ears. It was easier and less hassle to just pay ourselves.

I've no confidence that the insurance company would have paid had the damage been more substantial, despite the full comprehensive policy.

All I can say is lucky for me I haven't yet had to call upon my auto insurance policy, I dread the day. I've probably jinxed my shelf now for saying that. Doh!

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Reason quoted: the nuts on the wheels weren't original oem. We argued the point to deaf ears. It was easier and less hassle to just pay ourselves.

All I can think is that you had a funky policy originating out of a goofball country. That wouldn't fly here in the states. Now, if I were paid to come up with an argument for denying coverage on a Cobra, that would not, on its face, garner an obvious bad faith denial claim... I think the best I could probably do is to take a car (think Morris's Kirkham) that was underwritten on the same policy as all the cars in his family and then claim it was excluded under the "We do not provide Liability Coverage for ... any vehicle which is designed mainly for use off public roads." That language is in most policies. And, hopefully, the insured didn't send in pictures and a description of the car, but just kind of "snuck it through" somehow. And, hopefully it was a fairly recent addition to the policy, because, what you tend to hear from judges or arbiters in cases like that is "but you cashed his premium payments for years and never uttered a peep...." But, you'd need a special Cobra, that is predominantly raced, for that to even have a chance.

[DAVID GAGNARD]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Yes!

Details: Sometime ago dad had a 1970s Chrysler Valiant, driving one day in light rain dad ran up the back of a Toyota, after slipping on the tram (light-rail) tracks.
The damage done was light a tail light cluster and rear bumper for the Toyota and a spit polish for the bumper on the Valiant.

This incident happend in the 90s, car was about 20-25 years old at the time. Dad was comprehensively insured. He was left holding the bill, just under $1000 as the insurance company refused to pay the claim. Reason quoted: the nuts on the wheels weren't original oem. We argued the point to deaf ears. It was easier and less hassle to just pay ourselves.

I've no confidence that the insurance company would have paid had the damage been more substantial, despite the full comprehensive policy.

All I can say is lucky for me I haven't yet had to call upon my auto insurance policy, I dread the day. I've probably jinxed my shelf now for saying that. Doh!

As Patrick alluded to, that wouldn't even come close to making here in the U.S....
I was in the auto repair business for 13 years before "jumping ship" to the insurance claims side, been doing that since 1994 and still at to this day.
I have worked an average of 1,000 auto claims per year since 1994 and have never seen an insurance company deny a claim based on something like "non DOT tires"!!!!!!!
If I was soo inclined to do and the insurance company wanted to, I'd bet I can easily find something of that nature to deny 90% of the claims that come across my desk.....the easiest one is to check the air pressure in the tires,if it is not at the manufacters recommend pressure one could argue that this was a contributing factor to the accident, how many people check their air pressure daily????? Pretty thin and unless the tires were flat a judge would throw that out so fast your head would spin.......

Any changes to a car from factory specs would be grounds to deny coverage,again,tire size,if it is not the exact same tire size as delivered,you have altered the car....
Once an insurance company takes you money and binds coverage there are a lot of "unwritten rules" that apply, if they continue to take your premium and bind coverage knowing there is a "defect" or possibly dangerous situation with a your car and do not make you aware of it and the possible loss of coverage, they are bound to provide the coverage and pay the claim....

Laws in Australia and the U.S. I guessing are vastly different, you can't compare one to the other......

Here is a good example,my own case: I have a 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback,I have collector car insurance on it and have since I bought and restored the car in the mid 90's....To insure it, they required very good 35mm photos of the four corners of the car, at least two of the engine compartment/engine up close and 2 of the interior... Since the mid 90's I have raised the "agreed on value" of the car twice as it has gone up in value and each time they required new photos, no problem,I took them and sent them in and they agreed to raise my policy value to what I wanted.....
So now, they have had photos of the car/engine/interior since day one,if there was a "defect" they would have been obligated to inform me of it then and had me correct it or just deny coverage altogether, but since they didn't and have taken my money for all these years it would be all but impossible for them to deny a claim based on a "defect"....
Thank God, I have never had to make a claim and hope I never do, but I rest easy at night knowing they will pay should the need arise....

David

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

I was in the auto repair business for 13 years Laws in Australia and the U.S. I guessing are vastly different, you can't compare one to the other......

I think they're pretty much still a penal colony....

[BobTheBuilder]

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

.....So now, they have had photos of the car/engine/interior since day one,if there was a "defect" they would have been obligated to inform me of it then and had me correct it or just deny coverage altogether, but since they didn't and have taken my money for all these years it would be all but impossible for them to deny a claim based on a "defect"....

Thank God, I have never had to make a claim and hope I never do, but I rest easy at night knowing they will pay should the need arise....

David

The photos are used by underwriting to verify the claimed condition, make and model of the car you are trying to insure. They are not intended, nor can they likely, show a mechanical or material "defect". The insurer is under no obligation to notify you of a pre-existing condition that exists on your vehicle, based upon photos you provide, and can and likely will deny any claim you attempt to make for a pre-existing condition that can be shown to exist in photos that you have supplied.

Also, I would like to see what "DOT" related exclusionary wording is being referred to in this thread as being in an Automobile Policy as I have never seen of or heard of any such exclusion existing or being applied.

[REAL 1]

DOT did not come into existence until around 1968. As I noted none of these cars are DOT approved more less the tire you have on it and that goes for original Cobras as well.

Following this logic no car or equipment pre dating DOT is insurable. What about all those classics with Coker repro tires?

I just confirm coverage as to my question and put it in my file. It is a good idea to send them a pic too as noted above.

[RodKnock]

Speaking of insurance, guess what day it is?