New tires/rock chip protection

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Randy Rosenberg

I'd be a bit more concerned about Liability insurance. If I lose control of my car, crash, and injure someone, then will my insurance cover it?

Alright, then let's change the scenario to an impaired Cobra owner who blows through a red light without even tapping his brakes and broadsides a school bus. The insurance adjuster then says "hey, I See billboards on that Cobra, OK policy nullified." You really think that makes sense?

[Unique427]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Alright, then let's change the scenario to an impaired Cobra owner who blows through a red light without even tapping his brakes and broadsides a school bus. The insurance adjuster then says "hey, I See billboards on that Cobra, OK policy nullified." You really think that makes sense?

Insurance payout for vehicle damage only would probably happen
without incident or question. A claims adjuster with exception of total
loss would simply ask for up to (3) quotes for repair. In this scenario
unless something was red flagged in the police report, they will pay.

Now, getting into an accident with property damage or injury/death is another
matter as it would likely involve litigation. Expect recorded interviews,
driving and vehicle maintenance records pulled by discovery. If the
plaintiff discovers and can prove those non-DOT tires and your
willful negligence to use them contributed to the cause of damage/injury/death,
judgement awards could exceed your insurance limits of liability.

You roll the dice and live by the decision. Any mental gymnastics played
to justify that decision will be rendered non-relevant in court.

Your best indicator is if there's been some prior precedence
involving non-DOT components.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Unique427

If the
plaintiff discovers and can prove those non-DOT tires and your
willful negligence to use them contributed to the cause of damage/injury/death,
judgement awards could exceed your insurance limits of liability.

Why would my billboards be treated any differently than if I had really bald tires with maybe the steel belts sticking out of them? The plaintiff's damages are what they are. Are you saying the presence of billboards would lead to punitives?

[Unique427]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Why would my billboards be treated any differently than if I had really bald tires with maybe the steel belts sticking out of them? The plaintiff's damages are what they are. Are you saying the presence of billboards would lead to punitives?

It ultimately comes down to what plantiff's attorney successfully
argues to a jury of 12 after his "industry experts" provide opinion.

Balding tires is actually a good comparison though I would think
more difficult for plaintiff to prove it was willful negligence.

As stated, if there's any precedence in previous cases, that would
provide the best indicator on what to expect.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Unique427

It ultimately comes down to what plaintiff's attorney successfully argues to a jury of 12 after his "industry experts" provide opinion.

I don't think most judges would let that instruction even make it to the jury, unless defense counsel was sound asleep at the table. But, that was still a better answer than the others.

[NROTOXIN]

Since this is now solely about a tire and litigation, the term "Your Mileage May Vary" should be the opening and closing argument.