Insurance woes

[Rennzfr]

Awhile back someone mentioned how it looked like a salesman had sold a trailer oversized for the tow vehicle they saw on the road.
Well, its not just the strain of towing on the vehicle. If an accident occurs when the trailer is too large, the liability is yours to own. I talked recently with someone whos father was in this predicament. After the accident the State Troopers weighed the tounge weight, the axles and examined the tow vehicle. The trailer was too heavy. The fault was his and the liability was his for an "at fault" accident. They lost everything in court.
And cheap insurance? You're crazy to go cut rate. Insurance doesn't just "fix your fender".
It's your out for heavy liability amd threatened laws suits. Atleast it can limit your losses. Buy tbe best you can! Working in an attorney's office I have seen the real cost of "saving" money.

[Roberte52]

It should be the TV owner's responsibility when deciding whether or not the TV can handle a planned trailer purchase.

[ronheater70]

Originally Posted by Rennzfr

Awhile back someone mentioned how it looked like a salesman had sold a trailer oversized for the tow vehicle they saw on the road.
Well, its not just the strain of towing on the vehicle. If an accident occurs when the trailer is too large, the liability is yours to own. I talked recently with someone whos father was in this predicament. After the accident the State Troopers weighed the tounge weight, the axles and examined the tow vehicle. The trailer was too heavy. The fault was his and the liability was his for an "at fault" accident. They lost everything in court.
And cheap insurance? You're crazy to go cut rate. Insurance doesn't just "fix your fender".
It's your out for heavy liability amd threatened laws suits. Atleast it can limit your losses. Buy tbe best you can! Working in an attorney's office I have seen the real cost of "saving" money.

What kind of accident?
Did they rear end someone, or fail to stop?
How did the officer account for the shifting weight caused by damage? How did he weigh the axles, and did he account for any damage. How did he assume the TV was not up to task?
The insurance would still pay, so what did they lose in court?
Was there a civil case?
If the insurance didnt pay, then the RV'r would have a case against the insurance company.. or did they simply have to little coverage?
What state did this happen in?

[spock123]

Originally Posted by Rennzfr

Awhile back someone mentioned how it looked like a salesman had sold a trailer oversized for the tow vehicle they saw on the road.

Well, its not just the strain of towing on the vehicle. If an accident occurs when the trailer is too large, the liability is yours to own. I talked recently with someone whos father was in this predicament. After the accident the State Troopers weighed the tounge weight, the axles and examined the tow vehicle. The trailer was too heavy. The fault was his and the liability was his for an "at fault" accident. They lost everything in court.

And cheap insurance? You're crazy to go cut rate. Insurance doesn't just "fix your fender".

It's your out for heavy liability amd threatened laws suits. Atleast it can limit your losses. Buy tbe best you can! Working in an attorney's office I have seen the real cost of "saving" money.

What state and city did this happen in. I would like to know how the troopers weighed the truck and determined all that. Even if I’m at fault my insurance company is going to pay the claim. I might get dropped later on but my insurance will pay the claim.

[Cowracer]

I call bullcrap. Your insurance is legally obligated to cover you even if you commit an illegal act, as long as that act was not intended to defraud. You cannot set your car on fire and expect the insurance to pay off, but I have yet to see a policy that won't cover you even if you are driving drunk. An overloaded TV may be illegal, and it can affect how much blame you share for the accident, but it your insurance cannot just go "oh, you were overloaded? Nope. Not paying"

https://www.insure.com/car-insurance...egal-acts.html

Tim

[ronheater70]

Originally Posted by Cowracer

I call bullcrap. Your insurance is legally obligated to cover you even if you commit an illegal act, as long as that act was not intended to defraud. You cannot set your car on fire and expect the insurance to pay off, but I have yet to see a policy that won't cover you even if you are driving drunk. An overloaded TV may be illegal, and it can affect how much blame you share for the accident, but it your insurance cannot just go "oh, you were overloaded? Nope. Not paying"

https://www.insure.com/car-insurance...egal-acts.html

Tim

You can see in my post above I have some questions about all of this.. I think the ONLY way that would be called "insurance woes" is if someone was killed, etc, and they were woefully uninsured and had to come up with the difference themselves.. But I can see no other circumstance where this would even be an issue. I still have a hard time understanding how and officer can weigh something AFTER an accident. AT the least it doesn't seem realistic. Typically if you were to be in an accident everything inside (assuming the trailer stays together) would get flown all over the place, Altering Axle and/ or tongue weights.

[Rennzfr]

Good questions all; I don't have all the answers, as this was relayed to me by the son of the man involved. My point is insurance is not going to get you out of liability,or a lawsuit. It will pay to it's maximums, and if you are found to be "at fault" you may be on the hook, as it were.
Here's what I know, yes the people were involved in an accident due to over weight conditions for the tow rig. They ended up crossing the center line, hitting another car head on. A fatality occurred. After the legal ramifications were finalized with the State Troopers, insurance companies, etc, the civil lawsuit was filed. The mans father lost in court, and is on the hook for damages that he must pay for until...well death or the lottery.
Have you seen the T.V. adds featuring Mayhem- "buy cut rate insurance and this accident may be on you"?
These things happen, buy from a reputable insurance company and know your rigs capabilities and drive responsibly.
That's my point. I wasn't "trying the case" here on the forum. I am neither attorney nor judge.
Thanks.

[spock123]

Originally Posted by Rennzfr

Good questions all; I don't have all the answers, as this was relayed to me by the son of the man involved. My point is insurance is not going to get you out of liability,or a lawsuit. It will pay to it's maximums, and if you are found to be "at fault" you may be on the hook, as it were.

Here's what I know, yes the people were involved in an accident due to over weight conditions for the tow rig. They ended up crossing the center line, hitting another car head on. A fatality occurred. After the legal ramifications were finalized with the State Troopers, insurance companies, etc, the civil lawsuit was filed. The mans father lost in court, and is on the hook for damages that he must pay for until...well death or the lottery.

Have you seen the T.V. adds featuring Mayhem- "buy cut rate insurance and this accident may be on you"?

These things happen, buy from a reputable insurance company and know your rigs capabilities and drive responsibly.

That's my point. I wasn't "trying the case" here on the forum. I am neither attorney nor judge.

Thanks.

Usually that’s what happens on the forum is when you try to pin somebody down it’s usually about someone they know. You can get sued for anything. Someone can come to your house and fall and you can get sued. My insurance company is going to fight a long time, my policy is $500,000 each accident and I’m thinking of raising it some more

[doc73]

Originally Posted by Cowracer

I call bullcrap. Your insurance is legally obligated to cover you even if you commit an illegal act, as long as that act was not intended to defraud. You cannot set your car on fire and expect the insurance to pay off, but I have yet to see a policy that won't cover you even if you are driving drunk. An overloaded TV may be illegal, and it can affect how much blame you share for the accident, but it your insurance cannot just go "oh, you were overloaded? Nope. Not paying"

https://www.insure.com/car-insurance...egal-acts.html

Tim

That's interesting. I always knew the would cover the other guy. But I was also ays under the impression they did not need to cover you...

[Cowracer]

Originally Posted by doc73

That's interesting. I always knew the would cover the other guy. But I was also ays under the impression they did not need to cover you...

Only an attempt to actively cause fraud, (purposely wrecking your car, etc) will negate your policy. If doing something illegal did, then 95% of the wrecks wouldn't be covered becasue usually someone doing something illegal is the root cause.


Of course, you can expect to be dropped like something that is dropped very quickly afterwards, but they still gotta pay on the claim.


Tim

[Cowracer]

Originally Posted by Rennzfr

Good questions all; I don't have all the answers, as this was relayed to me by the son of the man involved. My point is insurance is not going to get you out of liability,or a lawsuit. It will pay to it's maximums, and if you are found to be "at fault" you may be on the hook, as it were.
Here's what I know, yes the people were involved in an accident due to over weight conditions for the tow rig. They ended up crossing the center line, hitting another car head on. A fatality occurred. After the legal ramifications were finalized with the State Troopers, insurance companies, etc, the civil lawsuit was filed. The mans father lost in court, and is on the hook for damages that he must pay for until...well death or the lottery.
Have you seen the T.V. adds featuring Mayhem- "buy cut rate insurance and this accident may be on you"?
These things happen, buy from a reputable insurance company and know your rigs capabilities and drive responsibly.
That's my point. I wasn't "trying the case" here on the forum. I am neither attorney nor judge.
Thanks.

That sounds like a case of getting cheap and not carrying enough coverage. The state mins are nowhere NEAR enough. In Missouri, the mins are $25k for bodily injury, $50 for total bodily injury (like if multiple people are injured) and $10k(!) for property damage.

That means you can be legal in MO, Hit and total my wife's new $33k convertible, and you would still be personally on the hook for $23k just on the property damage alone after the insurance pays off. Thats why you pay for uninsured motorist coverage.

Simply "having insurance" ain't enough. not even close.

Tim

[doc73]

Originally Posted by Cowracer

Only an attempt to actively cause fraud, (purposely wrecking your car, etc) will negate your policy. If doing something illegal did, then 95% of the wrecks wouldn't be covered becasue usually someone doing something illegal is the root cause.


Of course, you can expect to be dropped like something that is dropped very quickly afterwards, but they still gotta pay on the claim.


Tim

I was more recurring to criminal acts, not. The common car crash.

[formerFR]

as an insurance agent, I know of no 'cut rate' insurance company... they do not exists. Each state regulates and mandates what insurance can offer, what must be offered, and the ability for the company to raise rates, or not, and how they must pay claims fairly.
No insurance company has the ability to simply 'drop' someone for an accident, whether at fault or not...usually any type of 'cancellation' of a policy, or more likely a 'non renewal' of the policy, is due to SEVERAL infractions, violations, penalties, accidents(especially at-fault), and/or fraud.
There's also very, very, very few instances when an insurance company either denies their own customer's claim, or from a third-party claimant involved in an accident, when liability and property damage is involved, EVEN if illegal activity is involved, activities with the vehicle that is not covered, such as 'uber' or 'commercial usage', etc. Even if someone not listed as a driver on a policy is driving and causes the accident, the company who insures the vehicle is still going to pay the claim, unless the insured can somehow 'prove' that it was stolen.

Now, on another part of the subject of insurance - few insurance companies go to 'court' for liability issues, even the big 'truck' accidents. They typically either work a deal directly to the injured party(s), or thru the claimants lawyer(s), and these deals are not 'o.k.'d' by the customer themselves, even if they feel that the claim is frivolous and they were not at fault. Companies find that going to 'court' is an automatic $25,000 cost to the company from their own laywers, so it makes more 'financial' sense to just pay the claimant/lawyer and be done with it... even at their own customer's outrage, since it will now be on their own record as an 'at fault' claim!

Crazy. True. Annoying - yes.

The honest answer is: purchase the amount and type of coverage you want/need from any company you wish - the 'brand' name is meaningless... they all have to respond the claims the same way when it comes to protecting you. If YOU choose only minimum coverage, then that's what they'll cover your for. Don't complain later that you shouldn't have bought 'cut rate' insurance, complain that YOU should have purchased more COVERAGE.

[FarFromLiberal]

The various automobile insurance policies sold in each state are designed to address both the motor vehicle code and the laws of the state I’m which the owner resides. That’s why you have to get a new policy when you move to another state and register your vehicles in the new state. Generally the policies are also approved for use in the state by the state insurance commission, unless you’re buying insurance from what’s termed a non-admitted carrier. Not a good idea unless you have no other options. It is not an illegal act that an insurer can refuse to cover or make a denial of claim on. It is damages or injuries caused by an intentional act that can an insurer can most often deny coverage for. But that is more often seen in the realm of the personal liability coverage included in a homeowners or other type of combination property/liability coverage, not very often seen in automobile liability unless you deliberately run over some one. I don’t this person’s insurer could’ve denied the claim just based on the overweight issue at all. And since it doesn’t sound like an intentional act, meaning the crash itself, any denial would’ve been based on something else like fraudulent application or information presented to the insurer. Much more likely that if he lost everything in court he was underinsured in the amount of liability coverage he was carrying. If you can’t get to $1million or more liability coverage on your auto or motorhome policy, buy a liability umbrella policy in increments of $1 million. Not expensive to do at all in most cases; driving record/history problems and/or a handful of under 21 drivers in the household can make it a bit expensive. And another piece of advice for consideration, with the thought process being What if you’re on the Not-At-Fault side of the accident and the person who hit you has state minimum liability coverage on their auto policy- don’t skimp on your Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Liability coverage. The little savings you get by keeping those limits low is not worth it when you or your family is seriously injured or worse.