Thread: Running tubeless on tube type rims

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

No need to wait, family legal business has been involved in motor vehicle insurance since 1976 and has presided over 7,500 claims involving modified vehicles. Apologies to anyone if I sounded like a smartarse *****, but I'll admit, that comment did strike me as a bit condescending.

Agreed that there are other criteria and its not two dimensional, but I'd struggle to find a policy that'd cover a vehicle that an owner has modified which leads to the vehicle being unroadworthy, especially if they knew or a reasonable person would have known that the modifications were unsafe or unroadworthy. This is why I get rattled by people doing HID modifications to their dipped beams, because they know perfectly well it isn't lawful yet pass it off by saying "all poorly adjusted headlights dazzle" or something to that effect. What is unlawful is unlawful and nothing makes it otherwise!

I agree with what you're saying because very few cars - even newer cars - would be perfectly roadworthy to the book, and I too doubt an insurance company wouldn't pay out because, for example, a new 2008MY vehicle had a blown stoplight, whether it caused an accident or not.

But I'd argue that in the instance of tyres, most insurance examiners are going to be interested in checking the state and appropriateness of tyres fitted to a vehicle.

Tada

How many people actually realise they have tubeless tyres on tube rims

And who's side of the story is your family business representing? the insurance company or defendant?

Originally Posted by rovercare

Tada

How many people actually realise they have tubeless tyres on tube rims

And who's side of the story is your family business representing? the insurance company or defendant?

insurance co.s

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

insurance co.s

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the policies I have read have clauses which say/mean something like:

The vehicle must be maintained in roadworthy condition (to the best knowledge/efforts of the owner).

You must inform the insurance company of any modifications to the vehicle.

I have heard conflicting info:

(a) the insurance companies can invoke these clauses and refuse to pay a claim regardless of whether they contributed to the accident.

or

(b) the insurance companies can only invoke these clauses if the modification or unroadworthy feature of the car contributed to the accident.

Are you able to comment on this?

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the policies I have read have clauses which say/mean something like:

The vehicle must be maintained in roadworthy condition (to the best knowledge/efforts of the owner).

You must inform the insurance company of any modifications to the vehicle.

I have heard conflicting info:

(a) the insurance companies can invoke these clauses and refuse to pay a claim regardless of whether they contributed to the accident.

or

(b) the insurance companies can only invoke these clauses if the modification or unroadworthy feature of the car contributed to the accident.

Are you able to comment on this?

I can't comment directly, but I've asked someone who can and they've basically said its at the discretion of the insurer:

For example, AAMI state that you are not covered "if your car was in an unroadworthy or unsafe condition that contributed to the accident being a condition that was known to and disregarded by you."

However RACV state that they will refuse a claim or cancel a policy at their discretion if "your vehicle is not in a condition that meets registration requirements in your State or Territory". (eg. Victorian requirement for registration that the vehicle has a RWC.)

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

I can't comment directly, but I've asked someone who can and they've basically said its at the discretion of the insurer:

For example, AAMI state that you are not covered "if your car was in an unroadworthy or unsafe condition that contributed to the accident being a condition that was known to and disregarded by you."

However RACV state that they will refuse a claim or cancel a policy at their discretion if "your vehicle is not in a condition that meets registration requirements in your State or Territory". (eg. Victorian requirement for registration that the vehicle has a RWC.)

I think that if there was any reason to question the safety of a vehicle and a tyre was no longer properly seated on a rim and the tyre (regardless of type) had been fitted to a tube type rim without a tube then there would be a problem.

Here is one for ya



Aquaplaned off a major road, whilst it was belting down rain, may of been speeding and eating a pizza, not me a mate of a mate of a mate, whom I bought the wreck off.........I wouldn't own a stinky Commodore

Somewhat bald back tyres (the insides slcik and "some" tread on the outers), not from hooning, but original fitment Bridgestones, 56,oooklms from new (the car and the tyres) and being stuck on crappy commodore IRS.........we all know how crap Holden IRS is yea?

RACV, gave partial payment and he kept the wreck in lieu of some of the unpaid monies, did they simply void him? NO, were the tyres a contributing factor in the accident, YES, after all the crap with the insurance company, if it was dry, full payment would off been made, as the only thing they could use to PARTIALLY knock payment, was the tyres as they could only PARTIALLY be to blame

Originally Posted by rovercare

Aquaplaned off a major road, whilst it was belting down rain, may of been speeding and eating a pizza, not me a mate of a mate of a mate, whom I bought the wreck off.........I wouldn't own a stinky Commodore

Somewhat bald back tyres (the insides slcik and "some" tread on the outers), not from hooning, but original fitment Bridgestones, 56,oooklms from new (the car and the tyres) and being stuck on crappy commodore IRS.........we all know how crap Holden IRS is yea?

RACV, gave partial payment and he kept the wreck in lieu of some of the unpaid monies, did they simply void him? NO, were the tyres a contributing factor in the accident, YES, after all the crap with the insurance company, if it was dry, full payment would off been made, as the only thing they could use to PARTIALLY knock payment, was the tyres as they could only PARTIALLY be to blame

I "conveniently" elected to leave out RACV's section on reduced claims, but yes they can elect to reduce or refuse a claim or cancel the policy if the vehicle "is not in good order and repair, free from rust, mechanical, hail or unrepaired damage, or any other damage that would make it unsafe". Sprung!


Our VY only managed 40,000k off a set of factory bridgestones so they must have been pretty badly worn.