GL1800Riders Forums banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,855 Posts
I’m not sure what everyone is concerned about. Let your insurance company deal with the lawyers and lawsuits. That’s what you pay for, to cover your legal liability.
I don't ride a CT, but I have no problem with the idea. So it isn't because I'm opposed to CTs that I say that no car insurance policy covers accidents caused by intentional conduct--otherwise when you wanted a new car, you could simply wreck your old one--and mounting a CT could easily be labelled intentional conduct. I think people running CTs should understand that as far as your liablility in an accident, for injury attorneys the genie is out of the bottle. Please don't blame the messenger, because I think it's unreasonable, but you really need to add this to your mix of concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I don't ride a CT, but I have no problem with the idea. So it isn't because I'm opposed to CTs that I say that no car insurance policy covers accidents caused by intentional conduct--otherwise when you wanted a new car, you could simply wreck your old one--and mounting a CT could easily be labelled intentional conduct. I think people running CTs should understand that as far as your liablility in an accident, for injury attorneys the genie is out of the bottle. Please don't blame the messenger, because I think it's unreasonable, but you really need to add this to your mix of concerns.

no, doesn’t work that way. there is no “intentional conduct“ exclusion in an insurance policy. Criminal acts or fraud will void coverage, if that’s what you mean. But using a car tire would not be either. And yes, people intentionally destroy their property To collect insurance all the time.
the lawyers discussed in this forum are looking to collect insurance payments by establishing liability due to the use of a car tire. Insurance would pay if the court agreed. these lawyers are not looking for for your money or property, none of use have enough to make collecting it worthwhile. the bigger payout is from your insurance.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
17,361 Posts
Discussion Starter #23 (Edited)
Please don't blame the messenger, because I think it's unreasonable, but you really need to add this to your mix of concerns.
Thank you ... that is exactly the point !!! A rider can be held accountable for making such decisions. Also, if a shop mounts it, or someone else mounts it for him, they can be held accountable too. I'm not referring to mounting a CT on the rim, but the one who mounts it on the m/c can be held accountable too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,855 Posts
"no, doesn’t work that way. there is no “intentional conduct“ exclusion in an insurance policy. Criminal acts or fraud will void coverage, if that’s what you mean. But using a car tire would not be either. And yes, people intentionally destroy their property To collect insurance all the time. the lawyers discussed in this forum are looking to collect insurance payments by establishing liability due to the use of a car tire. Insurance would pay if the court agreed. these lawyers are not looking for for your money or property, none of use have enough to make collecting it worthwhile. the bigger payout is from your insurance."

WingNero--You haven't stated your credentials for explaining with some authority how it works, but I'm happy to assume you have some. I have none. I'm just speculating from what I have seen lawyers try to do. My point is that this is an emerging area. Your knowing how it works now may be solid, but you can't know how it will work in the future. Lawyers for insurance companies wanting to collect from your insurance, for their insured, and lawyers for your insurance company not wanting to pay out to others for you will (in my experience of the world) try all sorts of arguments. Some will stick, some will not. Deliberately running a tire that you have been told by tire manufacturers is dangerous to use puts you in jeopardy of being accused of an intentional act that made what you were doing even more dangerous than it is commonly assumed motorcycling already is.

This (Exclusions for Intentional Acts in Motorist Insurance -) is the source of this:

"State legislatures have authorized motorist insurance companies to exclude coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage, for any damages from an intentional act in their policies. Public policy prohibits insurance coverage for intentional acts because a person should pay for his or her intentional injury to another person. Further, the courts have held that injuries caused by an intentional act are not caused by “accident.”

Whether an act is intentional for purposes of the exclusion depends on the facts of the particular case. If the parties agree on the facts, a court can make an intentional injury determination as a matter of law. Intent to cause an injury can be inferred if the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the insured’s intentional act. Whether or not an intentional act has occurred can be inferred from the insured’s conduct."

I will repeat what I said before: The CT genie is out of the legal bottle, and, reasonable or not, lawyers will be looking at your tires. Going forward, a responsible rider with a family must consider this as he or she thinks about whether to run a CT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,791 Posts
I wonder if these guys believe still believe the earth is flat also. Probably not. They are just trolling for customers.:eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: remoandiris

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Stupid question: How are trikes classified when it comes to CTs? I don't see any mechanical reason to not run CTs on a trike. Just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Stupid question: How are trikes classified when it comes to CTs? I don't see any mechanical reason to not run CTs on a trike. Just curious.
Besides the car tires being on a trike, any aftermarket accessories, like a trike kit, if we follow Greg's reasoning, could also be subject to a potential suit resultant from an accident. And we could also add in any vehicle that was not serviced and maintained by a factory trained and authorized mechanic at the manufacturer's authorized dealer. Maybe Greg should check the fine print on his liability insurance policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Stupid question: How are trikes classified when it comes to CTs? I don't see any mechanical reason to not run CTs on a trike. Just curious.
I believe the rear wheels on a trike have the car tire bead which is what the concern is all about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,986 Posts
Some lawyer (or their clerk) wrote a crappy article about car tires. There's no mention of a case there, and not even the typical "if you or someone you know has been injured by Darkside scum, call Saul" plea.

If there are some real settlements against Darkside riders, that would be meaningful information to present and discuss. Please provide some if you've got it. Lawyers and insurance companies "being aware of" CT on MC is different than it impacting a case.

There is nothing substantive to see here without actual settlements. Some existing opinions rehashed, poorly, with no value add from a tangential mention be an ambulance chaser.

I am aware of my potential liabilities and under no illusion that my insurance with its limited liability coverage will insulate me from all in the extreme. I'll make my own informed choice. Others will make their choices too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
I'm sure that despite the total lack of positive proof that CTs cause crashes, there will still be naysayers who will insist that we not use em. In addition, I'm sure there will be a few instances where the naysayers will attempt to blame a crash on a CT, i.e. deer jumps out in front of bike with CT and cause bike to crash, intoxicated rider crashes bike with CT, high wind causes bike with CT to fall over onto children's playground set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
you are using the layman definition. Legally, which is the act the law you quote refers to, is:
"intentional act" as one in which the actor either:
1. Consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of the result happening from his conduct, or
2. Knows that the result is "substantially certain" to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result."

you do not do any of these thing when you use a car tire and have an accident.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,855 Posts
you are using the layman definition. Legally, which is the act the law you quote refers to, is:
"intentional act" as one in which the actor either:
1. Consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of the result happening from his conduct, or
2. Knows that the result is "substantially certain" to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result."

you do not do any of these thing when you use a car tire and have an accident.
I am using the layman's definition. Being a layman, that makes sense coming from me. You're not a layman? Insurance agent? Attorney? Time to show your cards.

And if you are an attorney, you know better than anyone that what the law says today is not necessarilly what the law will say tomorrow. All Greg is trying to say is that the landscape is changing. All I said was that a formerly implicit consideration is now explicit. Neither of us said no one should use CTs. I've not used one before, but I think it's a good idea generally. I happily put a non-recommended radial on a bike specced for bias play and never looked back.

Anytime we ride, we consider a bunch of factors. There's one more factor now. Thanks to Greg for pointing this out, although pointing out something about tires shouldn't require an act of courage on a motorcycle forum.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
17,361 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
Stupid question: How are trikes classified when it comes to CTs? I don't see any mechanical reason to not run CTs on a trike. Just curious.
There is a huge difference there, and the difference are called engineers. Let me explain. A shop like mine has what is call garage liability insurance. Garage liability insurance does not cover major alterations ... in other words, I cannot expect my insurance company to cover a liability loss if I start designing, building, and installing my own trike kits.

Apparently to make major alterations, that insurance coverage is called manufactures insurance. Of coarse tike manufactures have insurance like that. And before any insurance company is gonna sell a policy to a manufacture, they gonna want to know what kind of liability they are covering. So one of the first questions is gonna be ... you got engineers designing your stuff, what are their names and credentials, or are your trikes kits that you've designing, building, and intend to sell, designed by, built by, and installed by, Joe-Six pack and his hoodlum gang ??? With any of the major trike manufactures, engineers design those kits and probably also oversee to some extent there manufacturing. Their engineers have deemed through scientific methods that car tires are best to use on the back of a trike.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
17,361 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Thanks to Greg for pointing this out, although pointing out something about tires shouldn't require an act of courage on a motorcycle forum.
LOL ... if you only knew what goes on in the back ground !!!

You are correct ... the landscape is changing and some people, obviously not all, may want to know that it is. I do know this, as a professional, if I mount a CT and something happens, a judge, at least in my country is gonna expect me to know better, and it's been my experience that he/she will hold me to a much higher standard then lets say a rider who chooses to do so. However, in my country it is also assumed that we all at least have an 8th grade education, and while a judge may hold me to a higher standard, he/she will also expected that a rider who mounts a car tire has read all the warnings. In a nut shell, a judge might say ... "you got some explaining to do ... what part of all those warnings did you not understand !!!"

Please keep in mind that I do not sell tires ... not CTs, not m/c tires, not even skate board tires, so I have no dog in this fight other then to share what I know.

One more thing ... and this could be an important consideration. What about a co-rider who may get hurt by a rider making a bad tire choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Can you provide a link to just one lawsuit that shows liability claim against a biker because of a car tire?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,855 Posts
Can you provide a link to just one lawsuit that shows liability claim against a biker because of a car tire?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any. I'm also unaware of any law firm trolling for exactly this (but that doesn't mean there haven't been any), so there's a chance there will be such a claim soon. And even then, that doesn't mean that this would be a winning argument. A lawyer on the other side of such a claim will argue that the claims of danger are overblown and unrealistic, that CTs don't in fact increase the danger, and will point to millions of miles of trouble-free CT use. Then a judge or jury would have to decide who was telling the better story. In the past, motorcyclists have too often not come out on the winning side of these decisions, but maybe that too is changing. Maybe judges and juries will start loving us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Stupid question: How are trikes classified when it comes to CTs? I don't see any mechanical reason to not run CTs on a trike. Just curious.
Goldwings do not come as trikes so no Goldwing comes with CT's and make sure what ever tire brand they are are approved for what ever brand rim you are using, According to Honda triking a Goldwing or adding a side car or trailer hitch are all unapproved modifications,and probably already got you in the sites of a law suit by shyster lawyers.
Honda GOLDWING GL1800 Owner's Manual (Page 17 of 193) | ManualsLib
So by the logic of all this lawyer talk any of these modifications puts you at risk of a law suit, most likely including not running the Honda specified tires. Probably the simple addition of a license plate can put the bike seriously out of balance if the right shyster lawyer is hired.

And let's not get started of the aerodynamic dangers of not running an OEM windshield or air wings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlbc212

·
Vendor
Joined
·
17,361 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
Can you provide a link to just one lawsuit that shows liability claim against a biker because of a car tire?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I've been searching google for few years looking for one, and have not been able to find one yet either. The link to those attorneys was sent to me by a member here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
LOL ... if you only knew what goes on in the back ground !!!

You are correct ... the landscape is changing and some people, obviously not all, may want to know that it is. I do know this, as a professional, if I mount a CT and something happens, a judge, at least in my country is gonna expect me to know better, and it's been my experience that he/she will hold me to a much higher standard then lets say a rider who chooses to do so. However, in my country it is also assumed that we all at least have an 8th grade education, and while a judge may hold me to a higher standard, he/she will also expected that a rider who mounts a car tire has read all the warnings. In a nut shell, a judge might say ... "you got some explaining to do ... what part of all those warnings did you not understand !!!"

Please keep in mind that I do not sell tires ... not CTs, not m/c tires, not even skate board tires, so I have no dog in this fight other then to share what I know.

One more thing ... and this could be an important consideration. What about a co-rider who may get hurt by a rider making a bad tire choice.
Thanks for the explanation, makes sense. Just curious how Orange County Choppers got away with it all these years without engineers? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
If changing anything on the bike impairs the original engineered design, how do they account for the variety of riders weight? After all, we are talking about changes to the original design, which I would think includes weight. One rider could weigh 105lbs while the next guy could weigh over 400. Notes on the saddlebag and trunk warn of exceeding 20lbs because it might change the balance of the bike. Really? but taking miss widestride Matilda for a ride doesn't?
Now, don't ya think a lawyer would have to prove that the CT actually caused an accident rather than just being on the bike? That goes back to my previous point of rider reaction time. Some riders out right freeze up and do nothing to avoid and accident. Would that be attributed to the CT, recurve windshield, missing reflector off the saddle bag or maybe the cup holder on the handle bars?
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top