Darkside and Insurance

[sennister]

I happen to know an Insurance Adjuster for one of the big national insurance companies that myself and a lot of other people use here.

Once I had gotten back from MNSTOC my family was over at his house for a get together so I went over. While there I asked him what his thoughts were.

Now he doesn't do motorcycle claims. They have a different group in his office that does them but he knows the people. He said that he would be very, very shocked if any of them would be able to figure out that it was a car tire and not a MC tire. He did say that odds are the only way they would ever know it was if it were to be taken to a dealer and one of the service guys were to happen to mention that it was a car tire. He really didn't think that it would be an issue.

Before too much longer I will be needing a new rear tire. I have been considering this. From talking with some people at MNSTOC I may be going to the darkside as well.

 

[nhdiesel]

I'll get my apron...

I would have thought about the same thing. Unless there was a specific reason for them to examine the rear tire- like if you had a blowout and crashed into a group of children- they would have no reason to look at it. But I don't deal with insurance...and don't even stay at Holiday Inns.

Jim

 

[sennister]

Also, unless there is a specific clause or exclusion in your policy they have no cause to deny a claim due to a CT fitted instead of MT.

It is something that came up at MNSTOC. We were chatting and someone asked if an insurance company would do any investigation into the accident. Now Minnesota is a No Fault State. Maybe that changes something, I don't know. From what I found out, they just process the claim and wouldn't take the time to try and figure out if it is an approved tire or not.

I think part of why it came up was due to things like where a tire shop could be held liable for mounting a tire that wasn't approved on a vehicle. For instance a regular truck tire on a 1 ton truck that didn't have the proper load rating.

I am sure that you will find tire installers (dealers) that may be unwilling to mount the tire. I have my own tire mounting and balancing equipment so it is a non issue to me.

Again, this was something that came up. Another person posed the question about those low profile tires that you see many cars and trucks with. Do they check to see if they meet load rating and such? From what I have been told. Nope. I really doubt it would get questioned.

 

[Landon]

Also, unless there is a specific clause or exclusion in your policy they have no cause to deny a claim due to a CT fitted instead of MT.

I bet "IF" they even figure out it was a car tire, they could hang their hat on unapproved equipment. IE a car tire not being designed for MC use. Why would they have a specific clause or exclusion? Did you call your insurance company and notify them you were using a CT on your MC?

As using a CT on an MC seems to keep catching on and more and more are doing it, I bet we will start to see clause in policies about CT use. I would also think adjusters would be notified to be on the look out for the use of a CT as insurance companies will look for any reason to deny a claim.

 

[Landon]

You seem awful sure that it cannot be denied. I don't know your policy, but as you said its the contract and its written by the insurance company. So I don't think its completely ridiculous to believe a claim "might" be denied.

 

[Gene]

Is that top box approved for use in the US use on your 1300 , if not it may cause you a denial of claim if they think it caused some kind of instability at speed , same thing different product . Want to sell it ?

 

[sennister]

Wow this is taking off.

If you ask an agent I don't think it will matter. He isn't the one processing the claim. He is the sales guy not the tech if you will.

The guy I spoke with is a lead tech but not for motorcycles. As I mentioned those fall under a different team. He basically said he wouldn't worry about it too much in the end.

As I said this question came up at MNSTOC and i had a source with one company in our area that could provide his thoughts. Does this set anything in stone? Nope. Just like anything else there is a certain level of risk we all take or we wouldn't ride a MC.

It just seems like they don't dig into things like this much so it will most likely be a nonissue.

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk.

 

[Blrfl]

Okay, ladies and germs, I've gone through and toasted everything in this thread that wasn't related to whether or not insurance companies will approve or deny claims on bikes that have darkside tires. 21 of the 31 posts got chucked, which is probably a ST-Owners record and will probably require that I register this action with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Several "I have xxx miles on my tire and love it more than I love my wife" posts went, as did a lot of cantankerousness that I don't think I've seen the likes of since... I dunno... mid February. My guess is that Joe probably would have canned the whole thing.

Please keep it on topic. I know Joe's busy these days, as am I.

--Mark

 

[redst05]

If an insurance company wanted to deny a claim for a so called car tire they could have the same ground in principal for not using the only tire approved by mother Honda! And another thought is where does it say car/truck tire on it?? It doesn't. It is DOT approved for public road use. Now I am not a smarty pants and don't know what it takes to be DOT approved and do they have limits as to vehicle type?? I do know there are weight limits, rim width recommendations and max speed limits. My ST meets these specs!

 

[nhdiesel]

It all boils down to the insurance company. They will try to deny any claim they want to for any reason they want to. A friend slid off an icy road in his truck and put in a claim. It was denied because he was "off roading", and not on a public street. He was only "off road" because he slid there. Some deny claims to lifted 4x4s because they have been altered. On the other hand, a local guy sunk his truck through a frozen pond when ice fishing...and his ins. company actually covered it!

HOW NOT TO ICE FISH. (watch all parts...that WAS an almost new truck)

Jim

 

[Bigmak96]

Landon, sorry I couldn't stay off the soap box yesterday. I guess I am a little wrapped up in how well the CT is working for me. I do feel that if Ins. Co.s had a problem with CTs , there would be more reference to it. Not to say I have looked all over to find some but the forums I have looked at only seem to be talking about choices rather than risks.
Again, Landon, sorry for thinking you were pissing in my sandbox. I've had my coffee this morning so all is well.

 

[LeeWonnacott]

most peoples dissatisfaction boils down to lack of understanding and education on insurance.

... and be aware, it's not always the insured that doesn't understand the policy. When I was hit by a car a few years ago I called my agent to inform them of the accident and I asked what I needed to file with them to gain my medical benefit. I was told with assurance that NC was a 'fault' state and that because the other guy cause the accident I had NO claim against my insurance company. My lawyer knew differently and charged me $200 to file the claim that got me a personal medical benefit. Needless to say I was really miffed with my agent and informed him to retrain his staff.

He's a rider too... has a Multi-Strada (Noisy thing!) and we've talked about CT on my ST ... according to him they have no exclusion and I shouldn't worry over it. So..... for me at least, any question about my insurance company denying a claim because I have a big honking tread on the rear wheel is resolved.

 

[sennister]

... and be aware, it's not always the insured that doesn't understand the policy. When I was hit by a car a few years ago I called my agent to inform them of the accident and I asked what I needed to file with them to gain my medical benefit. I was told with assurance that NC was a 'fault' state and that because the other guy cause the accident I had NO claim against my insurance company. My lawyer knew differently and charged me $200 to file the claim that got me a personal medical benefit. Needless to say I was really miffed with my agent and informed him to retrain his staff.

He's a rider too... has a Multi-Strada (Noisy thing!) and we've talked about CT on my ST ... according to him they have no exclusion and I shouldn't worry over it. So..... for me at least, any question about my insurance company denying a claim because I have a big honking tread on the rear wheel is resolved.

Keep in mind though that the agent is little more than a sales person. They should know how things work but all to often don't know. You proved that in the case where you had to spend money on a lawyer to get the coverage that you should have gotten from the get go.

In my case the person I spoke to works for the company that I carry insurance through for my ST. I know that this company is also one of the companies used by a large portion of riders here. I shouldn't need to name it but it starts with a "P". He isn't an agent with them but rather works on the claims side of the business so he would know more about what takes place during the process. Granted he doesn't work on motorcycle claims specifically as motorcycles and I think other things like campers and RVs are all taken care of by another team in his office. His group only works with car and truck claims specifically. Because they all work out of the same office he knows them and they collaborate at times. In fact there was a ST that was damaged in an accident and they spoke to me about some things.

 

[HR Cole]

Yakity, yakity, yakity....bad CT..bad I say! Naysayer...doomsday....that's probably why the east coast had the earthquake today because of all the darksiders out there! :chatter: A shift in the rubber equalibrium swinging from MC tires to CT's! I do say I think that is it!!!!! 4:

Is this thread an offshoot of the oil forum? :BDH:

 

[nhdiesel]

No, they won't...at least not a good insurance company but, once again, all of them are getting lumped into the same bucket with this statement.

Ummm...I could post up MANY examples otherwise, but I'll use just one- I had my year-old street ridden XR600 stolen and vandalized. The top end was toast. The dealer I bought it from did an estimate, then the adjuster checked it out. He noticed a few small scrapes. He said the bike had been abused, and would only pay half the estimate. $1800 estimate was cut to $900, minus my deductible. The dealer fought for me, telling them it was in very good condition and well maintained for a dirt bike, but I was told take it or leave it. A lawyer would have cost more than what I was losing, so I ended up getting the shaft. And since I couldn't afford the repairs, I got my engine back in a box. At least the dealer felt bad, and didn't charge me for the tear-down that the ins. never paid for.

Yes, *some* ins. companies will try to weasel their way out. The example above was Progressive.

Its VERY common for ins. companies to under cut estimates, and you end up having to fight with them to get the rightful payment. I saw that a lot at the dealer I worked at, which had their own body shop. Fighting to get repairs covered was a daily chore.

Jim

 

[Landon]

Here is what I got from Progressive:

Thank you for contacting Progressive.



Your question is one that we cannot answer at this time. In the event of an actual claim, coverage and payment will be determined by your Claims Representative. Your Claims Representative will personally handle your claim and will review all the facts, along with the terms and conditions of your policy and applicable state law. Policy language and laws vary by state and each claim is unique.


Not really much of an answer and does not give me a clear answer.

 

[JZH]

Consumer insurance in the UK is apparently quite different than in the USA. Here, insurance companies routinely deny coverage for the smallest transgressions, and they are usually legally covered by the "duty to disclose" under UK law, which holds that:

An applicant for insurance is under a duty to disclose to the insurer, prior to the conclusion of a contract, up to date with all material facts within his knowledge, which the latter does not or is not deemed to know. A failure to disclose, however innocent, entitles the insurer to avoid the contract ab initio, and upon avoidance it is deemed never to have existed.

In other words, in the UK you have to tell your insurer everything that could be considered material, and mounting a car tyre on a motorcycle would likely be considered "material". I've read of people who have attempted to fulfill this obligation by providing their insurers with a *complete* list of all modifications done to the motorcycle, listing the tyre make, model and size--deep among numerous other things. However, I am not aware of any judicial determinations regarding whether or not this approach would successfully discharge the insured party's duty to disclose...

However, this duty seems to only apply upon taking out the contract and upon its renewal--any mid-policy changes would be covered by the policy's specific language regarding mid-policy changes (if any).

The same legal duty does not appear to be implied in US contracts of insurance (I haven't been able to find any such references, at any rate), and given that US insurance companies don't even seem to be very concerned about people riding without motorcycle endorsements, I have to conclude that the whole vehicle insurance business is apparently run on a very different basis than in the UK. (Not only would the UK insurance company deny any claim by an unlicensed rider, the police would get involved and the rider would very likely be prosecuted for uninsured driving--which is punishable in the UK with a prison sentence.)

Another area to investigate might be the US federal regulations relating to the fitment of tires to motor vehicles. On new vehicles, there are regulations governing OEM fitment of tires and other equipment (FVVSS 119 and 120, possibly), but there may be nothing applicable to subsequent consumer fitments at all. However, giving the liability culture, a more relevant question for the US market would be: if for whatever reason the tires were to fail or otherwise cause personal injury, who would the survivors (and/or their heirs) sue? The tire manufacturer--for making the failed tire? Honda--for making it possible to fit an inappropriate tire? The tire installer--for installing it? The tire seller--for selling it? The bike's owner--for owning it? The bike's rider--nah!

The bottom line is that you're probably taking a big legal risk doing this in a jurisdiction with an English law tradition (UK, Canada, Australia, etc.), much less so in the USA. Good luck.

Ciao,

 

[sherob]

I would look for the term "non-standard equipment"... as in, "the use of or installation of non-standard equipment". That statement right there would get a denial of a claim... dropped policy.

 

[Gene]

Is it me or are the folks not interested in running a CT the most concerned about the reasons why we shoiuldn't be doing it ? This also is a thread with no real answers , but was one of our Wing riding members on a CT during any of his adventures in the last few yrs to have REAL firsthand knowledge claims and outcomes ?

 

[Mellow]

Is it me or are the folks not interested in running a CT the most concerned about the reasons why we shoiuldn't be doing it ? This also is a thread with no real answers , but was one of our Wing riding members on a CT during any of his adventures in the last few yrs to have REAL firsthand knowledge claims and outcomes ?

This is for discussion purposes... you don't really know if someone is or isn't interested in running a CT. But, the insurance aspect of it may just be what is holding them back so they may either cause them to definitely NOT run one or give one a try.