Do GY Billboards void your insurance?

[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????

[G-Pete]

Well David, Shelby of America still sells the car in the same configuration and these cars are approved by the Department of transportation (DOT).

When you order the car, you need to specify the tires - if you choose BB they WILL tell you these are NOT street legal.

Out of the window goes your aftermarket theory....sorry.

[patrickt]

The most ubiquitous face of insurance is "Flo from Progressive," whose commercial just happened to come on the TV as I was reading this thread. On a whim, I typed them in, along with "Racing Slicks," and, sure enough, this page came up: Auto Insurance Coverage Options - Custom Parts and Equipment (CPE)/Accessory Coverage Yes, apparently Flo covers "Racing Slicks," and racing seats, too, but not CB radios. Now, if that's not a compelling reason to take a moment and read your policy, I don't know what is. But, you gotta love Flo....

[DAVID GAGNARD]

Originally Posted by joyridin'

That may all be true, but do they actually have wording on them saying the item is for racing purposes only or not intended for street use?

Yes, many of the items do indeed so "FOR RACING ONLY" or "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY".......

Well David, Shelby of America still sells the car in the same configuration and these cars are approved by the Department of transportation (DOT).
When you order the car, you need to specify the tires - if you choose BB they WILL tell you these are NOT street legal.
Out of the window goes your aftermarket theory....sorry.

Approved as what????????? a kit car that does not conform to the Federal standards,that's why Shelby and ALL other manufacters can't make and sell a completed road ready car...DOT and the Feds do not regulate these cars as they regulate production cars,so therefore, not much if anything on these cars is DOT approved....they get by because they are exempt because they are considered "homebuilt" and not a production auto...

Can anyone site just one case where an insurer refused to pay a claim due to using non DOT legal tires????

David

[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 patrickt

The most ubiquitous face of insurance is "Flo from Progressive," whose commercial just happened to come on the TV as I was reading this thread. On a whim, I typed them in, along with "Racing Slicks," and, sure enough, this page came up: Auto Insurance Coverage Options - Custom Parts and Equipment (CPE)/Accessory Coverage Yes, apparently Flo covers "Racing Slicks," and racing seats, too, but not CB radios. Now, if that's not a compelling reason to take a moment and read your policy, I don't know what is. But, you gotta love Flo....

You need to re-read the page you linked and understand what they are saying!!!!!! The info on that link is pretty much "standard" types stuff in most all auto policies....stating only half of what you read is pretty mis-leading to the uninformed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CPE covers permanently attached equipment, devices, accessories, enhancements and changes, other than those that the manufacturer originally installs, that alter the appearance or performance of an automobile. This includes, but is not limited to:

Vs, radios and CD players and similar electronic devices that are not permanently installed in the vehicle
•Radar detectors
•Tapes, CDs and containers used to store them
•CB radios, telephones or two-way mobile radios that are not permanently installed in the vehicle

What this means is these items are NOT covered if they are just laying on your seat or floorboard,it they are attached to the car,then they are considered part of the car and ARE covered......90% of those that have a cb radio will have the bracket screwed under the edge of the dash or somewhere else in the car,attaching the cb to the car,IT IS now part of the car AND covered.....
Same goes for items in your trunk,whether it be your Cobra or your wife's daily driver, loose items in your trunk are considered "cargo" and not part of the car itself and therefore not covered,your spare tire and jack are normally attached to the trunk floor to hold them down,so now they are attached to the car and are covered items.........

Dvaid

[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

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

You need to re-read the page you linked and understand what they are saying!!!!!! The info on that link is pretty much "standard" types stuff in most all auto policies....stating only half of what you read is pretty mis-leading to the uninformed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dvaid

David, I just included the link because it had "racing slicks" clearly specified. Nothing more than that.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by BobTheBuilder

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.

Nor have I; it's ClubCobra "urban myth." I even spent a few minutes today doing a keyword search on the ISO exclusion forms and couldn't find anything even remotely close.

[G-Pete]

I'm still waiting for the letters...

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by G-Pete

I'm still waiting for the letters...

Fair request; Evan, produce the letters.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by G-Pete

I'm still waiting for the letters...

If Evan hasn't posted his letters by the end of the day, you might think about asking the moderators for sanctions against him for his failure to proffer timely discovery. Just helping you along, Petey....

[RodKnock]

Speaking of insurance, guess what day it is?

[G-Pete]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Just helping you along, Petey....

Thanks, I think I can handle that...