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.

[G-Pete]

Now my question: Is it really SO hard to obey the law?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by G-Pete

Now my question: Is it really SO hard to obey the law?

Yes, it is virtually impossible. Pete, if your insurance will cover you when you are driving your car, while shi*-faced drunk, doing 90MPH in a school zone, and snorting skag off the back of your hand, what makes you think you're not covered with BBs on the car? But, I do agree with Evan that, especially if English is not your native language, you should check with your independent agent if you have any questions. That's what they're there for, and they usually know the answers without having to think about it much. In fact, you might even just send them the specs on your car and, if the carrier later balks because you had a magic time-warping turbine instead of a small block, then you can just bang the agent on their Errors & Omissions coverage. The more policies you can pull in to the litigation, the better it is for everybody.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by 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.

But just imagine if the guy was using the DOT approved, but traction impaired BF Goodrich tires. Perhaps the parent would then wish that the driver had the high traction billboards instead, that would have prevented the accident altogether.

[REAL 1]

I'm an attorney and just don't play one on T.V.

You guys can sit and argue back and forth all day long but unless you are an insurance underwriter and have experience reviewing and reading policies (which is a good idea) which can be difficult to read and understand when taken together with all the "exclusions" which at times seem to eliminate coverage all together your best bet IMHO is to confirm whether there is coverage with your agent and/or carrier and put the letter in your "file" in the event there is need.

That's what I did.

[patrickt]

Well, Evan, what part of your policy confused you to such an extent that you had to ask the carrier for clarification?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[DAVID GAGNARD]

I think ya'll are putting way too much into this.......if an insurance company doesn't want to pay on a claim your making because of the non DOT tires, than I and any insurance company can make a dam good case not to ever pay on any claim anyone with a Cobra makes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets see:
non DOT rated 4 pt./5 pt. seat belts
non DOT rated brake lines
non DOT rated brakes (how many after market brake set-ups have you seen in a Jegs/Summit catalog that say DOT RATED????????)
Do you know your racing brake fluid IS NOT DOT RATED AND FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY?????
Non conforming tail lights/brake lights (does not meet the federally required total square inches per light)
non DOT rated wheels
and on and on and on..........

after all, these are kit cars even though some are 90% built on an assembly line or by the manufacter.........
There is not much on any Cobra that IS DOT RATED!!!!!!!!!!

David

[joyridin']

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

I think ya'll are putting way too much into this.......if an insurance company doesn't want to pay on a claim your making because of the non DOT tires, than I and any insurance company can make a dam good case not to ever pay on any claim anyone with a Cobra makes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets see:
non DOT rated 4 pt./5 pt. seat belts
non DOT rated brake lines
non DOT rated brakes (how many after market brake set-ups have you seen in a Jegs/Summit catalog that say DOT RATED????????)
Do you know your racing brake fluid IS NOT DOT RATED AND FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY?????
Non conforming tail lights/brake lights (does not meet the federally required total square inches per light)
non DOT rated wheels
and on and on and on..........

after all, these are kit cars even though some are 90% built on an assembly line or by the manufacter.........
There is not much on any Cobra that IS DOT RATED!!!!!!!!!!

David

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?