Interesting take on vehicle modification

[utherjorge]

If the payout exceeds your policy limit you could be sued and it will be up to you to challenge the apportioning of fault.

It's my opinion and that of others as well that quite a few people have never had an accident where lawyers have gotten involved.

Here, if your limits are low enough, they'll simply hold up their thumb at it, and say "policy limits" and pay out. Where you carry more than that, that's where things get interesting. I also have more than the minimum uninsured motorist coverage to make myself whole in case (again) I get popped by someone who's using "The General" some other low-cost insurance at the base limits and can't cover their bad decision-making on the road.

I also go out of my way to have all my paperwork for my two rigs that are lifted so that I can be clear that what I did (Dobinson's, OME) isn't some shade tree garbage that got cobbled together because it looks cool. 5" on my Amigo, about 2" on my GX. Doesn't mean some overzealous attorney won't try to make it an issue if there's a hint he or she can.

 

[Todd780]

It all boils down the this, it’s why our country was founded and the fight continues. Outsiders will not understand.

Some of us understand and agree. I want less government intrusion for Canada as well.

 

[DRAX]

I'm gonna have to politely disagree with you here, Drax. And this is coming from a guy who is a skeptic:
Yes insurance is there to CYA. It's also there to cover you if the other person isnt insured.

Yes, this was already mentioned by me. However, there is a caveat. Your insurance will ONLY cover your losses when the other person is un- or under-insured if YOU carry uninsured/underinsured coverage on your policy. Your standard comprehensive coverage won't pay out without that coverage.

Yes, if there is a crash and the other person says your lights blinded them, if the crash is serious enough, the investigators will check your lights. If your lights are beyond a certain lumens, if they are mis-aimed, if they even have a blue hue (color of police lights in this state), more or all of the responsibility for that accident will be shifted onto you. Your insurance goes up and that's for 6 years.

Nobody said otherwise. The discussion has been around insurance denying claims due to negligence, nothing to do with raising rates.

Yes, if your tires stick out beyond the fender flare by more than 2 inches, and kick up a rock into a car windshield, causing that driver to panic and swerve, causing a tractor trailer to jackknife or flip...IF someone an prove that (GoPro maybe), then responsibility shifts to you. Seafood laden tractor trailers can be carrying half a million bucks worth of catch...

In every accident, the other driver's insurance company is the enemy. They are going to try to pin liability on anyone else. By all means, make yourself an easy target, if you like.

I think we're getting off into the weeds here. The discussion wasn't about liability but about negligence and insurance not paying out when someone is negligent, which I've said is false (and it is). In the vast majority of accidents someone was negligent and caused the accident. Their insurance pays out unless they can find a way to shift liability to someone or something else, but the punchline is the same; Insurance is mostly there to pay out when someone is negligent. For anyone to say that insurance won't pay out if someone is negligent is patently false.

Yes, in my state at least, if you have a snowplow on the front of your truck, but you did not add the appropriate liability insurance for it, good luck in court even if someone else crosses the yellow and hits you head on. They caused the accident, but your extra unregulated and uninsured equipment caused more damage than due, or maybe caused an injury or fatality that wouldnt have happened if the plow wasnt there. If it's all registered and insured, at least then you have the right to drive with it and then it may not be a negligence or wrongful death criminal charge on top of the civil suit that is definitely forthcoming.

If that goes for a snowplow (and I KNOW it does) then I have no doubt it could be used against you if you have a steel bumper that's not set up properly and air-bag compliant.

Such modifications don't create negligence, but as mentioned can increase liability. This is a different subject than initially discussed and one that people need to take up with their insurance to ensure they are properly insured. Even if such modifications don't increase liability they can still increase exposure to financial loss if such modifications are not included in your policy. For example, I have an additional $5,000 coverage for accessories/modifications on my truck that without such coverage I wouldn't receive compensation for those parts if my truck were totaled and I filed a claim with my insurance for the damage. IIRC, my insurance will cover something like $1,000 worth of accessories without requiring additional coverage. Without the additional coverage I would be out the money for pretty much everything beyond a factory-stock truck if something were to happen to it.

As I've said before, insurance is primarily to cover someone being negligent. Not carrying the correct coverage is not negligence. I mean, in a way it is but not in terms of causing the accident. Not carrying the correct coverage exposes you to financial loss. Insurance doesn't protect you against civil or criminal litigation but additional insurance, like an umbrella policy, can help protect you should that happen. Insurance doesn't protect you from jail, etc.

The whole issue I have with statements in this thread have been with folks saying that if you're overweight then insurance doesn't have to pay out since you were negligent.

Insurance isnt just to pay out someone who owns another car that you've hit. It also pays to have your own vehicle repaired. Especially in a "no-fault" state. If you are out of spec (whether it be declared equipment or stated use of vehicle) and are deemed the cause of an accident, your insurance will pay out the damaged party, but YOUR side of the claimed damage will go unpaid.

Sorry, that is incorrect as well. No-fault states require parties to file claims with their own insurance rather than the "at-fault" party's insurance as this generally helps provide better coverage for those involved as each party's insurance pays the insured's damages rather than the other party's damages. No part of this results in the other party being compensated while you receive nothing. Let's say a state used a contributory negligence system as well and you were deemed to be 30% at fault. Does that mean you have to pay for 30% of damages out of pocket? No. That means the at-fault party's insurance would only pay for 70% of damages and your insurance would have to cover the remaining 30%.

The situation you're talking about, where the other party gets paid but you get nothing, is when you only carry liability insurance. That is typically the minimum coverage required by states and covers damage someone else up to your coverage limit(s) but doesn't provide you with any coverage for damage to your vehicle, your medical bills, etc. Liability insurance is to CYA should you cause someone else damage or harm, not yourself. Liability insurance really only makes sense when "full-coverage" insurance would end up costing you more than the vehicle being insured is worth.

Proof? Ok. Some young girl was driving for Door Dash or UberEats or some such entity. She was parked right behind my truck. My truck was turned off, parked properly, locked and nobody was in it. I was in a residence nearby. No fault on me at all. Due to her lack of driving experience, lack of caution and subsequent panic, as she pulled out of the spot behind me, she hit the corner of my rear bumper with the front corner of her car. Startled, she hit the gas. My bumper was pushed into the body of my truck and bent a little. However, as she took off, the entire side of her vehicle was raked by the corner of my bumper. My damage was over 3 grand. Hers was a total loss. I got paid. She didnt. Know why? She never let insurance know that she was driving professionally. That would have increased her insurance rate, so she couldnt be bothered with paying on the front end, so she paid on the back end.

This is the perfect example of not having the correct coverage. Again, it wasn't negligent driving that prevented her insurance from paying for damages to her own vehicle but rather participating in activities not covered by her policy. This is no different than your insurance not covering you more than, say, 100 yards off of a marked/named road, you going down some random unmarked trail, rolling due to the road giving way, and then trying to get your insurance to pay for the damages. Ignorance, not negligence, left you exposed because you didn't know your policy wouldn't cover you or your vehicle in that situation. If the driver in the situation above had the correct coverage on her policy then her insurance would have paid for the damage to her vehicle. For example, Progressive has rideshare insurance that will cover a driver when operating their vehicle between rides/deliveries, including damage to their own vehicle. The driver in your case above was "off the clock" because the accident happened between jobs but while they were still operating as a for-hire driver. Companies like Uber provide insurance for while drivers are on-the-clock, including damage to their own vehicle however there is typically a high ($2,500) deductible for the driver's comprehensive coverage. As soon as the driver is off the clock that coverage no longer applies and the only way they will have coverage for damage to their vehicle if they cause an accident is if they have added drive-for-hire coverage. Their personal coverage wouldn't kick in here unless they can prove they weren't waiting for their next delivery/ride (Off the clock and app not running).

 

[DRAX]

This is completely wrong. Whether it's because no one weighs rigs after an accident or whatever, it's completely wrong that you cannot get rung up, and big time, for an overloaded rig. Period. Doesn't mean it's common. It's not low-hanging fruit so it often gets ignored.

You may feel that it's wrong, but that doesn't make it so. I feel like you're also taking what was said out of context, or lacking context mentioned elsewhere. I'll address this again below, too. In the case here, though, unless your insurance policy explicitly says "damage caused by X, Y, Z are excluded from coverage" then your insurance will cover you provided you have the correct coverage in the first place. Insurance does not protect you from civil or criminal litigation should you be found to be grossly or criminally negligent. I, nor anyone else, said that insurance will cover your entire ass from all exposure to financial responsibility. In fact, in a previous post, I said this. But that is outside the context/scope of previous posts that suggested your insurance would not (or didn't have to) pay out if you were overweight, etc. That statement is false unless your policy explicitly states the coverage does not apply if you are overweight. Everyone is welcome to look through their policies to find any provision that states this. I will be surprised if anyone in the US has insurance with such a clause. Why? Because there has never been a documented instance where insurance refused to pay out when a non-commercial driver was overweight and caused an accident.

And a personal anecdote. I was in a horrible car accident in 2003. Lost a daughter. Head on between my car (year or so old Honda Civic sedan) and a guy going too fast in an ice storm (5+ year old Oldsmobile). They absolutely fine-toothed combed both cars in my accident because the other driver claimed I was at fault, which I was not. Other than some corrosion and being super overdue for an oil change, both cars were determined to NOT be the reason for the accident. And this was in 2003, in rural New York, though admittedly said investigation was done by Troopers.

Sorry for your loss. The accident investigation/recreation team was doing their job due to the severity of the accident. Even if they did find something that could point fault as some mechanical issue that wouldn't have changed much. The other driver was negligent and their insurance paid out (up to their limits), no? Their insurance didn't reject the claim because the driver was negligent, right? Similarly, if you ended up filing a civil suit against them their auto insurance wouldn't have covered that unless they had an umbrella liability policy. You may know about umbrella policies or maybe you don't, but it's another layer of insurance to CYA when your other insurance limits are hit or won't cover damages you're liable for.

I beleive Drax could modify a vehicle in such a way as to make it more capable and more responsive. But if an investigation is conducted pursuant to a death, they see, say, a big slide in camper on a k1500, that sticker WILL be referenced and most slideins are deemed too heavy for 1500's.

It would likely be up to Drax to prove his modifications made his truck better and more capable. And everything was torqued to spec along the way. And then answer the question by the clever attorney: "Why, Mr. Drax, would a torque spec concern you if the GVWR spec did not?"

I'm not necessarily saying Drax wouldnt be able to do great work. Hell, I'm no mechanic but did my friend's front brakes. Taught him about torque specs and loc-tite, and why we want to make sure the caliper anchor bolt doesnt come loose. Then an ASE certified mechanic did the rear brakes, and a rear caliper anchor bolt came loose on the highway. It could happen to anyone.

So Drax may do great work but he would then be in the near untenable position of proving he was qualified to do it, and then proving he dis so on that set of mods.

Nothing I personally do, regardless of documentation, will change the manufacturer certification numbers of my truck. Why? I'm not a certified body builder or coach builder. The only way to get those numbers changed is by having a certified body builder modify my vehicle and certify their work for the increased weight rating. A lot of people think that upgrading their suspension, adding air bags, etc will increase their payload capacity. That is legally false, the GVWR is unchanged and writing new numbers in Sharpie won't change that. I could put 1-ton axles and springs under my truck, it wouldn't increase my legal payload by 1LB as GVWR isn't just about axles, tires, or springs. GVWR is about the frame, the brakes, the steering, the ability of the vehicle to perform within various standards, etc. and getting a vehicle re-certified for higher weight ratings would likely be a lot more expensive than just buying a vehicle that meets your needs from the factory.

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy seeing nodded and offroad capable vehicles. I'm just nodding mine within the accepted limits because I dont want to hurt anyone and I dont want legal problems down the road. Same reason I try to have as little gear hanging off the outside of my truck as possible. If it was purely an offroad beast, that would surely be a different story

For sure, but my original point and disagreement still stands; Negligence does not prevent insurance from paying out like people claim. I've seen it claimed for years, "tow overweight and your insurance won't cover you if you wreck!" Never been proven and it's not because insurance has never checked vehicle weights, I guarantee you they will check weights, especially if your rig appears to be grossly overweight, because they need to know what may be coming their way, but insurance covers stupid and illegal things all the time. Drunk driving is a perfect example. If someone has insurance, drives drunk, and causes an accident that results in damage or injuries to someone else then the drunk driver's insurance will pay out to the other party. Whether the drunk driver's insurance pays the drunk driver for their injuries or damage comes down to exclusions in their policy, there is no answer that covers everyone here.

Something else that I don't think was covered was intent. Most, if not all, insurance policies will not cover intentional damage or harm as that generally falls under insurance fraud. The specifics for intentionally damaging someone else or their property varies, but when it comes to covering yourself or your property when you intentionally damage it is generally not covered (I can't say definitely because there may be policies out there that don't have such exclusions).

Here's how a lot of people get into weight trouble without realizing it until it's too late.

• They think payload capacity doesn't include people, so they load/hitch up something that doesn't exceed their payload capacity but as soon as the driver or passengers get in they become overweight, sometimes excessively so.
• They think the tow rating doesn't change based on their payload. They think they can drop 1,000LB of gear into their vehicle and still have a 7,000LB tow rating because the brochure says that's what the vehicle can tow.
• They listen to salespeople that don't care about how weights work and tell people their vehicle can tow a certain trailer because the trailer's factory dry weight is less than the tow vehicle's max tow rating claimed by the manufacturer in the brochure/commercials/etc. Nobody takes the time to calculate actual tow ratings for their vehicle and load.

Then you have the people that truly don't care. These are the ones that you see going down the freeway at or faster than the speed limit, ass dragging on the ground because the trailer is too heavy and/or the vehicle is loaded to the gills with people and stuff. Any normal person can tell just by looking at those vehicles before they get on the road that they're overweight, but there are people that just don't care. And I guarantee you that, in the US when those people wreck their insurance pays out because there is no exclusion clause for non-commercial auto insurance that states there will be no coverage as a result of or while the vehicle is overweight.

I'm not an expert, but I've been around enough to know what to expect in a lot of cases. Insurance is there to cover accidental loss, whether that was due to negligence or unpredictable mechanical failure doesn't matter. What matters most is intent, what can be proven, and if any part of an incident falls within any exclusions within your policy.

Very common exclusions that people ignore or aren't aware of are coverage while off-road and coverage while operating as drive-for-hire (paid delivery or transportation of goods or people). There are situations where, regardless of fault, your insurance doesn't have to pay for damages or injuries to your property or yourself but will still pay for damage or injuries you cause to others.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Some of us understand and agree. I want less government intrusion for Canada as well.
View attachment 706464

No comment?

 

[pith helmet]

Some of us understand and agree. I want less government intrusion for Canada as well.

??????

 

[utherjorge]

Because there has never been a documented instance where insurance refused to pay out when a non-commercial driver was overweight and caused an accident.

Morris v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67136

Snip:

When Plaintiff purchased the Ultra Classic, he was provided with an owner's manual ("Owner's Manual"), which contained warnings and instructions regarding the Ultra Classic. (Pl.'s Dep. 168:17-19, 278:9-279:23.) Specifically, the Owner's Manual warned against exceeding the GVWR:

Do not exceed the motorcycle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating [*5] (GVWR) or Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). Exceeding these weight ratings can affect stability and handling, which could result in death or serious injury. (00016e)

Barragan v. U-Haul Int'l, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244716

Snip: Yep, it's U-Haul, which is sorta commercial, but not really. Overloaded vehicle caused death and the apocalypse.


"Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES all claims against U-Haul WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DISMISSES the following claims against Kelton's WITH PREJUDICE: (1) strict-liability design defect; (2) negligent failure to train; (3) negligent failure to warn about the tow vehicle to trailer weight ratio; (4) breach of an express warranty of merchantability; and (5) exemplary damages for gross negligence.

Against Kelton's the following claims remain: (1) negligence inspection; (2) negligent maintenance; (3) negligent failure to warn about the condition of the trailer at the time it was rented; and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability."

In short, user overloaded the vehicle, caused the accident, and then sued UHaul. The court agreed UHaul was free and clear, and that the users were to blame. Here, despite expert testimony that the vehicle was clearly overloaded, a found defect in the trailer brakes is where the court went, as there appears to have been no attempt to fix them when the users found there was a problem mid-trip.


Morris v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30824

Snip: " In his report, Schultz opines that the vehicle was overloaded. He bases this opinion on: (1) the lack of damage to the upper surface of the truck's hood; (2) the condition of the rear axle [*14] pads; (3) the tire marks for the front and rear tires; (4) the prior history of having to change out the rear tires; and (5) how the weight from the modifications to the truck bed, the truck's cargo, and the tongue of the trailer together adversely affected the load on the rear tires (Schultz Expert Report at 5-6). Schultz not only identifies these factors, but explains how they demonstrate the truck was overloaded (id.). Accordingly, Schultz has met his obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. "

Not the full case, but arguing that the expert above was wrong and should be excluded. Motion failed. Expert testimony allowed.



United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420


Snip: " "We know, we always have known, everybody knows that trucks are overloaded on occasion." 64 A 1969 GM letter to the Federal Highway Administrator explained [*435] that "in the case of trucks . . . the applicable GVW can be exceeded easily and will be exceeded unless the operator takes precautions against so doing" and that "owners have continued and will continue to exceed these limitations." 65 These statements underscore the realities of operation -- owners do not always know or pay close attention to the weight of their cargo, and are not always scrupulous to make sure that tires are inflated to specified pressures, and loads carefully balanced front-to-back and side-to-side. 66 The reality of day-to-day operation embraces some to-be-expected overloading of the vehicle and overinflation of the tires, and this provides the proper context in which to evaluate vehicle performance. [**36] "

From 1974. Gov said GM was wrong and that the wheel problems were GM's fault. GM claimed overloading was the user's fault, or in some cases, the dealer was at fault. Decision reversed the decision, and GM won.

Using the search terms "accident + overloading + pickup" (this was my first search attempt), I had 1233 articles. Obviously, not all were germane...but the above were in the first 20.

 

[RoyJ]

I don't think anyone here says that you would be criminally responsible SOLELY based on the fact you are modded. But if your mods contributed to the cause or the damage, that's on you, especially they are beyond what the state allows.

Criminal charges are serious for sure but not the only thing to be concerned about. And civil cases do NOT require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court and expert witnesses do cost money and time, that's true. Isurance companies have deep, deep pockets. Do you have pockets as deep as a national insurance company? I dont. But if you are found responsible for an accident where someone was killed, the you are the one on defense. And the police and opposite insurance company are coming after you.

Defense attorneys? Do you have any idea what they cost on an hourly basis? $100 an hour around here is very cheap. Try $500 an hour or more. Expert witnesses cost are additional. And you wont get out of it for a measly 10 hours worth. Nope. You'll be in it for months or years at maybe 10 hours per week. 20 grand just for a legal retainer in a superior court case.

Read my post about the uninsured snow plow, or the girl who didnt tell her insurance company she was using her car for work, for example. Those are real examples on a smaller scale

Neither of your cases were related to vehicle mods - they were for lack of insurance coverage, a whole different topic.

What I'm looking for is: a person with a modified 4x4 gets into an accident, vs a similar case of a stock 4wd in a similar accident. The OEM 4x4 driver walks free while the modified 4x4 owners gets full insurance denial, and left with civil / criminal case to defend.

If the OEM 4x4 DIDN'T walk free, the all those attorney cost, strain of a lengthened trial, etc., would apply equally to the modded and unmodded vehicle.

I'd say 95%+ of members here belong under the modified group. If I'm the engineer expert witness acting on behalf of the state / insurance company, I can pick up just about every vehicle build, and prove how they invalidated every OEM component certification from the wheel bearings to suspension bushing. 1" lift and 1" larger tires on your 4runner? Boom, every vehicle stability code thrown out the window. Where do you draw the line?

 

[RoyJ]

Morris v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67136

Snip:

When Plaintiff purchased the Ultra Classic, he was provided with an owner's manual ("Owner's Manual"), which contained warnings and instructions regarding the Ultra Classic. (Pl.'s Dep. 168:17-19, 278:9-279:23.) Specifically, the Owner's Manual warned against exceeding the GVWR:



Barragan v. U-Haul Int'l, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244716

Snip: Yep, it's U-Haul, which is sorta commercial, but not really. Overloaded vehicle caused death and the apocalypse.


"Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES all claims against U-Haul WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DISMISSES the following claims against Kelton's WITH PREJUDICE: (1) strict-liability design defect; (2) negligent failure to train; (3) negligent failure to warn about the tow vehicle to trailer weight ratio; (4) breach of an express warranty of merchantability; and (5) exemplary damages for gross negligence.

Against Kelton's the following claims remain: (1) negligence inspection; (2) negligent maintenance; (3) negligent failure to warn about the condition of the trailer at the time it was rented; and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability."

In short, user overloaded the vehicle, caused the accident, and then sued UHaul. The court agreed UHaul was free and clear, and that the users were to blame. Here, despite expert testimony that the vehicle was clearly overloaded, a found defect in the trailer brakes is where the court went, as there appears to have been no attempt to fix them when the users found there was a problem mid-trip.


Morris v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30824

Snip: " In his report, Schultz opines that the vehicle was overloaded. He bases this opinion on: (1) the lack of damage to the upper surface of the truck's hood; (2) the condition of the rear axle [*14] pads; (3) the tire marks for the front and rear tires; (4) the prior history of having to change out the rear tires; and (5) how the weight from the modifications to the truck bed, the truck's cargo, and the tongue of the trailer together adversely affected the load on the rear tires (Schultz Expert Report at 5-6). Schultz not only identifies these factors, but explains how they demonstrate the truck was overloaded (id.). Accordingly, Schultz has met his obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. "

Not the full case, but arguing that the expert above was wrong and should be excluded. Motion failed. Expert testimony allowed.



United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420


Snip: " "We know, we always have known, everybody knows that trucks are overloaded on occasion." 64 A 1969 GM letter to the Federal Highway Administrator explained [*435] that "in the case of trucks . . . the applicable GVW can be exceeded easily and will be exceeded unless the operator takes precautions against so doing" and that "owners have continued and will continue to exceed these limitations." 65 These statements underscore the realities of operation -- owners do not always know or pay close attention to the weight of their cargo, and are not always scrupulous to make sure that tires are inflated to specified pressures, and loads carefully balanced front-to-back and side-to-side. 66 The reality of day-to-day operation embraces some to-be-expected overloading of the vehicle and overinflation of the tires, and this provides the proper context in which to evaluate vehicle performance. [**36] "

From 1974. Gov said GM was wrong and that the wheel problems were GM's fault. GM claimed overloading was the user's fault, or in some cases, the dealer was at fault. Decision reversed the decision, and GM won.

Using the search terms "accident + overloading + pickup" (this was my first search attempt), I had 1233 articles. Obviously, not all were germane...but the above were in the first 20.

View attachment 706567

Unless I'm reading them wrong, those cases are the person doing the overloading suing someone else to defer blame / accountability. Of course they'd lose.

Any cases where THEY get sued?

If I flip my lifted Jeep and tried to sue Jeep, I fully expect to lose the case.

 

[utherjorge]

Neither of your cases were related to vehicle mods - they were for lack of insurance coverage, a whole different topic.

Nope, you're moving the goalposts. Much of this thread has been talking about GVWR, which is what I looked for. I didn't look for anything with mods at all.

The previous concern/line of thinking/whatever was a repeated claim that there had "never" been a case where a non-commercial driver was rung up for being overloaded. That claim is now not only demonstrably false, but I included a handful of the more than a thousand cases dealing with the legal dangers of being overloaded. By the way, that's the term that you can find when searching that database: "overloaded." Half the research battle is figuring out what you've got to look for.

What I'm looking for is: a person with a modified 4x4 gets into an accident, vs a similar case of a stock 4wd in a similar accident. The OEM 4x4 driver walks free while the modified 4x4 owners gets full insurance denial, and left with civil / criminal case to defend.

I can look. I don't know, and that wasn't something I saw discussed here at all.

If the OEM 4x4 DIDN'T walk free, the all those attorney cost, strain of a lengthened trial, etc., would apply equally to the modded and unmodded vehicle.

I don't understand this sentence.

I'd say 95%+ of members here belong under the modified group. If I'm the engineer expert witness acting on behalf of the state / insurance company, I can pick up just about every vehicle build, and prove how they invalidated every OEM component certification from the wheel bearings to suspension bushing. 1" lift and 1" larger tires on your 4runner? Boom, every vehicle stability code thrown out the window. Where do you draw the line?

I'll bet you already know that this is exactly right. You already know how aftermarket mods invalidate the warranty. That's why tuners brag that you can dump their code for a trip back to the dealer, and it's a bigger deal when a manufacturer bakes in a stock lift kit, etc., because it's now warrantied by the factory. And as always, the line is drawn, a little differently, for any court case where it comes up.

 

[utherjorge]

Unless I'm reading them wrong, those cases are the person doing the overloading suing someone else to defer blame / accountability. Of course they'd lose.

Any cases where THEY get sued?

If I flip my lifted Jeep and tried to sue Jeep, I fully expect to lose the case.

It's exactly the same thing, though. If you overload your rig and flip it, Jeep isn't going to sue you. That's silly.

An exception might be something like the Explorer saga, where one company sues another (Ford vs. Firestone, whoever sued first) but again, in each case, its going to mitigate liability.

 

[bjp]

It's exactly the same thing, though. If you overload your rig and flip it, Jeep isn't going to sue you. That's silly.

An exception might be something like the Explorer saga, where one company sues another (Ford vs. Firestone, whoever sued first) but again, in each case, its going to mitigate liability.

I think what Royj is saying is that none of your examples show where a person overloaded their vehicle and then got sued (successfully) by the person they ran over, or by that person’s insurance carrier. Why would you think he was asking for a case where Jeep sued a Jeep owner because the Jeep owner messed up?

 

[utherjorge]

I just go with what I've been given. You can see the post I quoted as well as I did.

And again, that's goalpost moving. The point is that overloading you car can get you in big trouble. The claim "no one has ever been sued" is untrue.

If the question now is "has anyone ever been sued by an insurance carrier," well, that's not really how it works. Their insurance will go after your insurance at the start. If you don't have an adequate policy, that's where things get spicy. If the question is now, "has anyone ever been sued because they were overloaded, caused an accident, and the other party sued them directly"...., well, no, I didn't look for that. How many different ways need to be stated that when you are overloaded, you can have your life ruined because you did so?

 

[RoyJ]

It's exactly the same thing, though. If you overload your rig and flip it, Jeep isn't going to sue you. That's silly.

An exception might be something like the Explorer saga, where one company sues another (Ford vs. Firestone, whoever sued first) but again, in each case, its going to mitigate liability.

Not Jeep. Like bjp explained - a case where the driver gets sued by a insurance company / injured party.

If I sue Jeep, who's not even directly involved in the accident, is very easy for them to prove they're not responsible even if I'm 5 lbs over GVW, or 0.5" lifted.

If someone sues me for additional liability, on top of an accident that's already determined I'm 100% at fault (rollover), then they have to prove the accident is 100% avoidable at GVW. Very very few parties would go that length because they've already won (I'm 100% at fault of the accident).

 

[RoyJ]

Nope, you're moving the goalposts. Much of this thread has been talking about GVWR, which is what I looked for. I didn't look for anything with mods at all.

The previous concern/line of thinking/whatever was a repeated claim that there had "never" been a case where a non-commercial driver was rung up for being overloaded. That claim is now not only demonstrably false, but I included a handful of the more than a thousand cases dealing with the legal dangers of being overloaded. By the way, that's the term that you can find when searching that database: "overloaded." Half the research battle is figuring out what you've got to look for.

I can look. I don't know, and that wasn't something I saw discussed here at all.


I don't understand this sentence.


I'll bet you already know that this is exactly right. You already know how aftermarket mods invalidate the warranty. That's why tuners brag that you can dump their code for a trip back to the dealer, and it's a bigger deal when a manufacturer bakes in a stock lift kit, etc., because it's now warrantied by the factory. And as always, the line is drawn, a little differently, for any court case where it comes up.

My point is: if someone claims going over GVW (an OEM engineering spec) can / will result in denial of insurance, then by same logic, ANY modification to your vehicle also invalidates every OEM spec, and thus result in the same insurance denial. This is not moving the goal post, both revolve around invalidating OEM spec resulting in (highly unlikely) insurance denial.

In THEORY, if you hit a pedestrian, a Lexus OEM engineer (expert witness), and help the insurance company out of any coverage. Pedestrian impact protection gone, lift affecting weight transfer, thus compromising vehicle braking and stability. Among a hundred other things.

But how likely will that happen? You're already at fault for hitting the pedestrian. There're bigger fish to fry for insurance companies / state prosecutors, such as DUI, street racing, excessive speeding, road rage - things that are much easier to prove and grab news headline better than "Lifted Lexus overlander hits pedestrian".

Are we going to give up this hobby based on the 0.01% chance a insurance company will call up a Ford powertrain engineer, and ding our modified and / or overloaded trucks? Certainly not for Clay at Exp Overland, who drove 7000 lb Tacomas half way around the world.