Swaybar Disconnects - Ford Raptor

[MingTheMerciless]

this could have gone one of two ways:

1. The insured tells the truth about his mods. The insurance company tells him to take a hike. NET RESULT: No coverage because of mods.
2. The insured fibs about his mods. The insurance company tell him to take a hike. NET RESULT: No coverage because of mods.

Misrep was just the trigger. The mods were the bullet. edit: The situation went down the hard way because the truck owner went with Option 2 instead of #1, so when he inevitably hit the net result... he was up a creek and had to say goodbye to $350,000 with no auto insurance coverage. Which I *think* takes me back to my first post about 20 pages and 2000 words back. Report your freaking mods and deal with it. Don't try to rationalize any other course of action because its your ass thats on the line in the end.

If you guys want to be genuinely informed on this case spend the 35 minutes and view the actual court hearing. Right after that go read the court's written opinion (google the case name). I watched it again today all the way thru and it was easy for the layman who takes the time to understand. The plaintiff's attorney tried really hard to say the term "modified" on the application was ambiguous; attempting to make the case that fuzzy dice and a university sticker could be considered modifications. The judges didn't buy it, and themselves said that common sense had to prevail; both in court and in the written opinion.

BigJ, the issue of the mods playing a role was addressed in the video when one of the justices described the incident. the truck owner loaned his truck to a guy, who, while driving it away from a bar, ran over a guy in the parking lot. The justice discussing the incident said he could easily see the lift kit making it more difficult to see the victim. Other comments during the hearing make it seem likely the lift kit was not an extreme one, so I don't think he got popped by a monster truck... but that is something that is speculative. either way it doesn't matter as the entire appeal hinged upon whether the question "is the vehicle modified?" was valid due to plaintiff's contention that the word "modified" was vague. The court said no.

 

[MarkT]

Mark all that's fine but this is the first time I'm hearing you agree that a lift kit and tires constitute a "modification". According to the court, they are. Officially.

Everything rolls down hill from there. That's the point.

Hmmm.... I don't think I was ever arguing that a lift kit and tires wasn't a modification.

And everything does not roll downhill from there unless you give the insurance company a chance to revoke your policy because of misrepresentation.

Had this guy insured a completely stock truck and installed the lift kit and wheels at some point later, this would not have happened. The insurance would not have been revoked because he did not misrepresent on the application.

 

[MarkT]

this could have gone one of two ways:

1. The insured tells the truth about his mods. The insurance company tells him to take a hike. NET RESULT: No coverage because of mods.
2. The insured fibs about his mods. The insurance company tell him to take a hike. NET RESULT: No coverage because of mods.

Misrep was just the trigger. The mods were the bullet. edit: The situation went down the hard way because the truck owner went with Option 2 instead of #1, so when he inevitably hit the net result... he was up a creek and had to say goodbye to $350,000 with no auto insurance coverage. Which I *think* takes me back to my first post about 20 pages and 2000 words back. Report your freaking mods and deal with it. Don't try to rationalize any other course of action because its your ass thats on the line in the end.

If you guys want to be genuinely informed on this case spend the 35 minutes and view the actual court hearing. Right after that go read the court's written opinion (google the case name). I watched it again today all the way thru and it was easy for the layman who takes the time to understand. The plaintiff's attorney tried really hard to say the term "modified" on the application was ambiguous; attempting to make the case that fuzzy dice and a university sticker could be considered modifications. The judges didn't buy it, and themselves said that common sense had to prevail; both in court and in the written opinion.

BigJ, the issue of the mods playing a role was addressed in the video when one of the justices described the incident. the truck owner loaned his truck to a guy, who, while driving it away from a bar, ran over a guy in the parking lot. The justice discussing the incident said he could easily see the lift kit making it more difficult to see the victim. Other comments during the hearing make it seem likely the lift kit was not an extreme one, so I don't think he got popped by a monster truck... but that is something that is speculative. either way it doesn't matter as the entire appeal hinged upon whether the question "is the vehicle modified?" was valid due to plaintiff's contention that the word "modified" was vague. The court said no.

Ming... While i've always agreed with your statements about not lying to your insurance company... I think the option 1 you presented is extremely misleading.

Why? Because if he had disclosed the mods up front and was therefore denied insurance from that company, he would have almost certainly been required to find another insurance company that would write the policy. And companies that would have insured him definitely do exist. NET RESULT: Fully insured because he did not lie!

The trigger is that there was an accident. The bullet is the fact that he misrepresented the vehicle on the application and this particular insurance company used that fact to deny coverage.

Can you agree that the misrepresentation did not have to be a lift kit and tires (mods)? The misrepresentation could have been his driving record, the number of drivers in his household, or any number of other "lies" people tell when applying for insurance in hopes that they might get a better rate.

And believe it or not, I agree that the entire appeal hinged on whether the vehicle was modified. But I think it's absolutely misleading to twist that fact into making this a case about "mods"!

Why did the appeal hinge on whether the vehicle was modified? There's only one reason. Because if the vehicle was not modified, there could not have been misrepresentation! This is 100% a case of misrepresentation. And to use this case to promote a fear that if you modify your vehicle you will be left completely uninsured is just not right IMHO.

The only thing this case should do is scare people into not lying on their insurance application.

 

[BigJ]

Mark, watch the video of the case. If you still feel the same after... I dunno what more to say.

 

[MarkT]

Mark, watch the video of the case. If you still feel the same after... I dunno what more to say.

I watched the video a while back.

When the application asked if the vehicle was "rebuilt, salvaged, modified, altered or specifically built/customized" and he said "no" (or the agent filled out "no" and the guy didn't read what he signed), he opened himself up to being denied coverage for material misrepresentation on the application.

If he had a DUI in another state that didn't show up on his driving record in Florida and he said no to the question if he had a DUI, the same thing would have happened.

Am I worried about the fact that the court considered a lift kit and big tires "modifications"? No, because they are! One key point in my mind is that the owner of the truck installed the lift kit and tires himself. (or had them installed by a shop). So without a doubt he knew the mods were done... it's not like he bought the truck lifted and could claim he didn't know it didn't come that way from the factory.

Another key point is that these mods were done BEFORE the application for insurance was filled out. Had the lift kit and big tires been added after the fact, material misrepresentation would not have been a factor and the insurance company could not have denied paying the injured party.

 

[MingTheMerciless]

Had this guy insured a completely stock truck and installed the lift kit and wheels at some point later, this would not have happened. The insurance would not have been revoked because he did not misrepresent on the application.

...
Another key point is that these mods were done BEFORE the application for insurance was filled out. Had the lift kit and big tires been added after the fact, material misrepresentation would not have been a factor and the insurance company could not have denied paying the injured party.

You are going to find situations where you are correct and the company will have to eat it. But its not a 100% thing. For example we have a statement within the original application that notes the insured is obligated to report new modifications for underwriting review. They even have to initial that line item. So you may be right or wrong depending on what day it is.

The bullet - what did the damage - was the mods. The trigger - what allowed the insurance to be issued - was the lie. As one of the justices said: He was free to go down the road and get insured somewhere else. If the lie had been non-material it would have been no-harm, no-foul. For example: A teenage daughter away at school but who comes home for the holidays and maybe the summer.

Can you agree that the misrepresentation did not have to be a lift kit and tires (mods)? The misrepresentation could have been his driving record, the number of drivers in his household, or any number of other "lies" people tell when applying for insurance in hopes that they might get a better rate.

Sorry but no. You are trying to paint with a broad brush and it doesn't work that way. All lies do not equal a policy recission (but some might). An insurance company thinks very carefully before going there. Its an extreme act with dire regulatory consequences for the carrier if they are found to have acted inappropriately.

Plus, materiality has to also be tied to the accident itself. Was the issue in question contributory? Again in the video you saw the judges ask, ponder and answer this question (among themselves). An unreported daughter would have no bearing on the case and an attempt to wiggle out of the policy - while strictly within the statute ... well, we'd never bother fighting on those grounds. we'd be so likely to lose it wouldn't be a thought.

It seems like you are trying to put things into a box and say "this is how it will go down" and that is just not how things work. The safe thing to do is just report mods and suffer thru the consequences (more money in premium, carriers telling you to eff off and go somewhere else), because your crystal ball will never be clear enough to do you any good. The other guy tried that and look where it got him.

 

[The Tank]

So after reading all this I've decided to pull my front sway bar. I need the flex for rock crawling.

 

[KaiserM715]

Or you can make / modify some disconnects and have the best of both (which is what this thread originally discussed.....).

 

[The Tank]

Or you can make / modify some disconnects and have the best of both (which is what this thread originally discussed.....).

That is coming after I remove the endlinks.

sent from ...... I don't know where I am.

 

[JDUB]

I noticed this is a really old thread!

But I have a question. The only concern I have with removing my sway bar is the inner CV boots tearing. Does the sway bar restrict the front suspension from full droop? If the sway bar restricts the front suspension from full droop, will the inner CV boots tear with the sway bars removed? Removing the sway bar would allow the front suspension to droop further than normal possibly tearing the CV boots?

It's just happened to me before on another vehicle and was a pain in the ass. Don't want to go through it again.

Thanks