Swaybar Disconnects - Ford Raptor

[BigJ]

Awesome Kaiser! Looking forward to your new thread.

 

[MarkT]

SNIP.

Dunno why you guys are agreeing that there is no example of anyone having coverage denied due to suspension mods. Unless I am misunderstanding the conversation. That guy that BigJ linked to lost. He won in the lower court but lost on appeal where it counts. The court agreed that the modifications voided the policy. However the higher court also directed the lower court to consider an entirely separate issue: Whether or not the agent's actions put the carrier on the hook despite the upheld contract language. The guy may get his money *eventually* but the deciding factor will be something that has nothing to do with the vehicle.

SNIP

I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said the outcome of the case will have "nothing to do with the vehicle". IMHO the case is clearly not about the mods to the vehicle... it is about "material misrepresentation".

He basically lied on the application about the lift kit, tires, and whatever mods were done. The coverage was denied when the insurance company found out about the lies (aka "material misrepresentation").

Please correct me if I'm wrong... but he could have "materially misrepresented" many other things on an application... his driving record... his criminal record... his accident history... how many kids over the age of 14 were living in the house... many things.

If he could prove that the agent knew he had a criminal record or whatever was misrepresented on the application for insurance, the case would be in the same place...

*The insurer would be claiming they would not have insured him had they known about ___.
*He would have been saying "but the agent knew about _____!!!".
*The court would be deciding if since the agent knew the facts, would his actions bind the insurance company to pay in spite of the proven misrepresentation?

Lesson learned? Do not "materially misrepresent"!!! (But IMHO this case is clearly not about the mods.)

Ming, I want to thank you for taking the time to post here. I appreciate hearing your perspective and I think we all learned a lot from the information you've shared!

 

[MingTheMerciless]

Man this thread is like a train wreck. I should run away but I can't help but be morbidly fascinated.

I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said the outcome of the case will have "nothing to do with the vehicle". IMHO the case is clearly not about the mods to the vehicle... it is about "material misrepresentation".

Well... no its not so simple as that.

Misrepresentation of facts got the guy an insurance policy. Sure. He fibbed about his mods. Coverage was denied because of the mods. If he had lied about a teenage daughter, but then crashed because of a missing sway bar, maybe thats misrep but its not *material* misrep since his daughter wasn't involved and as such any misrep about her is not material to the case. In this case, the mods are what made the misrep material. Sorry but it all comes back to the fact that the truck was modified.

Now he's trying Plan B: Saying the agent put the company on the hook. If that fails, Plan C will be a claim against the agent's malpractice insurance. Assuming he still has money to keep paying lawyers.

A nightmare for him that could have been avoided if he had reported his mods. Sure he might have had to go get another insurance company. But he'd have found one and gone thru none of this grief.

(and neither would we )

 

[MarkT]

SNIP
Well... no its not so simple as that.

Misrepresentation of facts got the guy an insurance policy. Sure. He fibbed about his mods. Coverage was denied because of the mods. If he had lied about a teenage daughter, but then crashed because of a missing sway bar, maybe thats misrep but its not *material* misrep since his daughter wasn't involved and as such any misrep about her is not material to the case. In this case, the mods are what made the misrep material. Sorry but it all comes back to the fact that the truck was modified. SNIP

If it all comes back to the fact that the truck was modified then how about this:

Insurance agent meets with guy and his daughter. Guy says "this is my teenage daughter who lives in my house". Guy proceeds to fib about not having a teenage daughter in the house on his application for insurance. (After all, she's not allowed to drive for another year and he doesn't want to have to pay higher rates.)

Daughter sneaks out, goes for a joyride in car, and has an accident. No other vehicles involved. Coverage is denied. Appeals court agrees guy "materially misrepresented" but sends it back to the lower court for them to determine what effect the agent's knowledge might have on the case... (the exact same circumstances except instead of lying about the mods on the application, he lies about his daughter)

Saying that it "all comes back to the fact that the truck was modified" would be the same as saying it "all comes back to the fact that he had a teenage daughter".

My point? It's not necessarily wrong to modify your truck just as it's not necessarily wrong to have a teenage daughter in the house. Neither circumstance on its own will get you into the kind of hassle this guy is in...

This case is clearly about the fact that the guy lied and is not about the modified truck.

(how many lives does this damn horse have?? )

 

[Madcowranch]

 

[MingTheMerciless]

edit: <snip>

Never mind. Happy thanksgiving everyone

 

[BigJ]

I don't really want to stir the pot (again), and I should probably take the cue from Ming, but...

I do have to admit I'm a bit confused by Mark's example; I'm not entirely sure how having a daughter equates to out and out lying on an application. Does the application, in your example, have the questions (1) Do you have a daughter and (2) Regardless of whether or not you currently have a daughter, do you agree that no daughter of yours will ever ever drive the insured vehicle? If he answers are (1) No and (2) Yes, and he in fact does have a daughter who did in fact drive the insured vehicle, now I think now we have a fair parallel between your example and the case I linked too.

But I'm not sure thats important anyway; I think you're focusing on the wrong issue Mark. Specifically, the contract language says "no mods" (paraphrasing). Just like Nationwide's insurance says "no mods".

So while you seem to be focused on the he-didnt-tell-his-insurance-he-had-mods issue, I think whats more important is that he was screwed no matter what; even if he had coverage before adding the mods, then added them after being approved for coverage, he would have been denied. The only difference would have been 'why' the insurance company chose to deny him.

Bottom line was the insurance company had a few choices when it came to denying this guy's coverage. The fact that they chose the former reason does not invalidate the fact that they could have chosen the latter reason (and still might try the latter if the former is thrown out in court).

And that, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the entire point of this discussion.

 

[MingTheMerciless]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

...even if he had coverage before adding the mods, then added them after being approved for coverage, he would have been denied.

acccccktuallly ... no. Thats more of a sin of omission than commission. Different stuff is going to happen on that and the rules will vary in some states. Depending on circumstances.

Fido says: wheeee!

 

[BigJ]

acccccktuallly ... no, not necessarily. Thats more of a sin of omission than commission. Different stuff is going to happen on that and the rules will vary in some states. Depending on circumstances.

Fixed, I think. If I understand any of this, he *could* have been denied, depending on any number of questions. Yes, no, maybe?

How about in the case of Nationwide. I bought the truck new, hired them as my insurance provider, then added a 6" body lift and 48" tires. Will I be "denied" coverage?

 

[MingTheMerciless]

The insurance company would be on pretty thin ice I think. I'd have to be sitting in a room full of attorneys who specialize in the laws of that state and who know the facts of the case and the amount of loss we're facing to get a sense of whether or not we'd even want to step into that ring.

A lot of the scenarios you guys are bandying about can go in either direction depending on just the physical location of the incident. Never mind the amount of risk or other factors (should we just pay it and walk? are we setting a precedent that will bite us later even if it is cheaper to walk?). Its a waste of time to try and cook up scenarios and expect to have a straight answer come out the other end.

On the consumer side of the fence, you can count on only one thing: The contract language. What does it say... and remember the application is considered to be an integral part of the policy, so those questions are just as important as coverage descriptions.

The reality is its a rare insurance application that has been worded with a hole in it that will let you conceal a mod without running into trouble. I'll go so far as to say they do not exist... its 2010 and by now everyone has been burned enough times to figure out their jobs when designing forms. You need to be straight with the company because it *is* about the mods, and no amount of spin on the ball will change that. We want the opportunity to evaluate the risk and come to a decision. Deny a company that opportunity and your coverage is in jeopardy. Period.