Do GY Billboards void your insurance?

[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.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by joyridin'

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.

A perfect example of a judicial inclination to extend coverage where it probably doesn't belong, not to restrict it from where it does.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by patrickt

A perfect example of a judicial inclination to extend coverage where it probably doesn't belong, not to restrict it from where it does.

Sorry Patrick, you've concussed me....
To extend on your comment above in retort to what Pete stated - Are you suggesting that insurances will pay out a policy holder even if they're criminally liable or at fault?

This is not my understanding of how insurance works.

I've a real reluctance to drive billboards bc I don't want the headaches of policy makers should the worst happen. Your position on this makes me feel like I should not care less about using them, but deep down I just can't bring myself to believe that.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Sorry Patrick, you've concussed me....
To extend on your comment above in retort to what Pete stated - Are you suggesting that insurances will pay out a policy holder even if they're criminally liable or at fault?

Of course they will, that's what you're paying for. Now, if you intentionally run someone over with your car, that will be excluded. But just because you broke the law (speeding, drunk driving), or were at fault (sound asleep when you blew through that red light), that's not going to negate your coverage. There are compelling societal reasons for not excluding stuff like this (and even if it was excluded all you would really be doing is shifting the cost of the risk).

Edit -- Now if you really meant to say "if the other guy is criminally liable or at fault," and not you, the policyholder, then I'll revise my answer.