Trying to determine if the rumors are true.

[Rams]

For years I've been told that insurance companies won't cover a bike running dark side.   I was just involved in a discussion on FB where an individual claimed horrible stories he had heard of insurance companies denying coverage to crashed bikes because they had a car tire on the rear.

And yet, after my crash three years ago where my bike was totaled the adjuster didn't care what was on the bike, I was paid for the bike plus the allowable accessories.    Most of us have heard of insurance companies not paying off but, that didn't happen to me.   I'm not asking about what someone told you, I'm asking if you factually know insurance was denied due to running darkside.

My current cruiser runs dark side.   Obviously, my trike runs with car tires on the rear.

Has anyone on this forum personal experience to speak with personal knowledge of an insurance company denying coverage specifically because of the bike having a car tire on the rear?   I know I/we could all call our insurance company and ask but, what one is told and what is actually happening are usually different.   Just look at our politicians for proof of that. 

If so, please let us know.

Rams

[Jess from VA]

It is a wive's tale.

IF they were to try to deny coverage, they would need to prove (or at least be able to legitimately argue) the car tire actually caused the accident.  (or somehow made it worse than it would have been with a bike tire - good luck with that).

Another issue can be state safety inspections (especially if you passed yours with a car tire, like I always do for many years, two bikes).  All that is required is DOT approved tires.  Good bike and car tires are ALL DOT approved.  

I had a bike cop tell me me my rear tire was low.  It wasn't; it had 40psi in it.  But it was flatter on bottom than he was used to seeing.  He didn't see car tire (from 5 feet).  I didn't tell him it was a car tire, I told him I'd check the pressure right away, and thanks for the heads up.  

Years ago when this came up, I asked that everyone running car tires NOT call their insurance companies and ask this question.  That's just the stupid kind of thing that could get them banned by bike carriers.  I again ask everyone NOT to call and ask the stupid question. 

[Willow]

...
And yet, after my crash three years ago where my bike was totaled the adjuster didn't care what was on the bike, I was paid for the bike plus the allowable accessories.    ... 

That was my experience as well.  I don't think the insurance company will question how the bike was equipped regarding tires.  I would also think it's not a good idea to even raise the question before or after an accident incident.

[Rams]

It is a wive's tale.

IF they were to try to deny coverage, they would need to prove (or at least be able to legitimately argue) the car tire actually caused the accident.  (or somehow made it worse than it would have been with a bike tire - good luck with that).

Another issue can be state safety inspections (especially if you passed yours with a car tire, like I always do for many years, two bikes).  All that is required is DOT approved tires.  Good bike and car tires are ALL DOT approved.  

SNIP

Years ago when this came up, I asked that everyone running car tires NOT call their insurance companies and ask this question.  That's just the stupid kind of thing that could get them banned by bike carriers.  I again ask everyone NOT to call and ask the stupid question. 

I agree and advised the person I was in a discussion with to prove some of his stories and have yet to hear back from him.

Rams

[Valkorado]

Also no questions asked from Progressive.  Good thing too.  They would have probably surmised that car tar I was running caused me to get rear-ended!

[Serk]

Just had a nice chat with the guy responsible for Motorcycles, Boats and RV's for Progressive in my area...

Of course, he's unable to 100% guarantee anything (Otherwise he wouldn't be in the insurance business!) but he's been doing nothing but bikes, RV's, boats, etc for 12+ years, and has never denied a claim based on a car tire on a motorcycle.

He's never seen anything come down from corporate telling 'em to deny a claim based on the wrong kind of tire on a vehicle.

He's never seen or heard of a claim being denied based on a car tire on a motorcycle.

"Besides, that'd just be silly, that'd mean we couldn't insure Boss Hoss' or trike's!"

"There's no exclusion for type of tire in your policy, we couldn't deny a claim based on the type of tire."

I know the haters are still gonna hate, nothing can be done about that, but I'm satisfied now...

https://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,15818.0.html

Edit to add:

And when Kali went down in West Virginia, a case COULD have been made that the darkside tire was part of the issue, since the tires getting caught in a rut was the problem, but Progressive made nary a peep about the type of tire on the bike...

[98valk]

on a side note, just bought a BT46 to put on the front after the D404 wears out.
interesting that the BT46 has "for rear tire only" cast into the side wall. 
the D404 and neither did the Conti-go tires have that on the side wall.
this is for a 130/90-17 for all three.

[Rams]

Just had a nice chat with the guy responsible for Motorcycles, Boats and RV's for Progressive in my area...

Of course, he's unable to 100% guarantee anything (Otherwise he wouldn't be in the insurance business!) but he's been doing nothing but bikes, RV's, boats, etc for 12+ years, and has never denied a claim based on a car tire on a motorcycle.

He's never seen anything come down from corporate telling 'em to deny a claim based on the wrong kind of tire on a vehicle.

He's never seen or heard of a claim being denied based on a car tire on a motorcycle.

"Besides, that'd just be silly, that'd mean we couldn't insure Boss Hoss' or trike's!"

"There's no exclusion for type of tire in your policy, we couldn't deny a claim based on the type of tire."

I know the haters are still gonna hate, nothing can be done about that, but I'm satisfied now...

https://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,15818.0.html

Edit to add:

And when Kali went down in West Virginia, a case COULD have been made that the darkside tire was part of the issue, since the tires getting caught in a rut was the problem, but Progressive made nary a peep about the type of tire on the bike...

More verification of what I already believe.   No, I'm not going to call my insurance company and raise the question.

Rams

[Avanti]

I run a car tire because I pull a trailer, have a extra box I frequently use and ride two up. It has a higher weight capacity, stops better, dose not care about road snakes and lasts longer. I never ask anyone for permission to do what I think is safest for riding.

[Jess from VA]

There's no exclusion for type of tire in your policy, we couldn't deny a claim based on the type of tire."

No there's not, but there is pretty clear precedent in liability law in general that if you intentionally do (add or subtract) something to your vehicle outside normal and customary practices that makes it unsafe or dangerous, you may have caused (all or part) of your own loss.  Insurance policies may have some language to this effect (or not).  

I rode a raked and extended chopper with no front brakes once...... just once.  I was not speeding, but could not slow down enough for a hard turn and ended up fishtailing across some guy's lawn, and he came out with his shotgun to complain about it.  

[hubcapsc]

For years I've been told that insurance companies won't cover a bike running dark side.   I was just involved in a discussion on FB where an individual claimed horrible stories he had heard of insurance companies denying coverage to crashed bikes because they had a car tire on the rear.Ford, which says it plans to appeal, said that the roof of the 2002 F-250 pickup truck was reasonably safe as designed, met industry standards and wasn’t covered by the federal roof-crush requirements that were adopted in the early 1990s, court documents show. The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker has also said that the tire on this particular truck had an incorrect load-carrying capacity, which caused it to catastrophically fail, and the victims had improperly used their seat belts, according to court filings.

Rams

As everyone on this thread has already mentioned, mostly nobody cares and it generally doesn't matter.

But when it is something big or important, you better bet it will matter what kind of tire you have,
what its load rating is, how old it is and anything else they can think of...

Ford, which says it plans to appeal, said that the roof of the 2002 F-250 pickup truck was reasonably safe as designed, met industry standards and wasn’t covered by the federal roof-crush requirements that were adopted in the early 1990s, court documents show. The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker has also said that the tire on this particular truck had an incorrect load-carrying capacity, which caused it to catastrophically fail, and the victims had improperly used their seat belts, according to court filings.

[Rams]

For years I've been told that insurance companies won't cover a bike running dark side.   I was just involved in a discussion on FB where an individual claimed horrible stories he had heard of insurance companies denying coverage to crashed bikes because they had a car tire on the rear.Ford, which says it plans to appeal, said that the roof of the 2002 F-250 pickup truck was reasonably safe as designed, met industry standards and wasn’t covered by the federal roof-crush requirements that were adopted in the early 1990s, court documents show. The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker has also said that the tire on this particular truck had an incorrect load-carrying capacity, which caused it to catastrophically fail, and the victims had improperly used their seat belts, according to court filings.

Rams

As everyone on this thread has already mentioned, mostly nobody cares and it generally doesn't matter.

But when it is something big or important, you better bet it will matter what kind of tire you have,
what its load rating is, how old it is and anything else they can think of...

Ford, which says it plans to appeal, said that the roof of the 2002 F-250 pickup truck was reasonably safe as designed, met industry standards and wasn’t covered by the federal roof-crush requirements that were adopted in the early 1990s, court documents show. The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker has also said that the tire on this particular truck had an incorrect load-carrying capacity, which caused it to catastrophically fail, and the victims had improperly used their seat belts, according to court filings.

I have no doubt that "contributing factors" could play a role but, if that factor doesn't point directly to the tire in question, I sincerely doubt it would even be question.

Edited:   Although in such a case as you mentioned (Ford), I also am very sure Ford will use every factor they can that indicates no fault on them. 

Rams

[Rocketman]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

[98valk]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

a car tire is a DOT certified tire. as yet of yet it does not state not for motorcycle usage. people need to stop stupidly calling their insurance company and asking stupid questions and giving then ammo to force us to use unsafe rear motorcycle tires that were originally designed profile for race track use.
My C/T prevented me from going down twice from unforeseen bad road conditions. if I was using a M/T would have loss traction and gone down.

[Rams]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."   I questioned him on whether or not that was gonna be a problem, he stated that he knew of no issue from the insurance policy so, I got paid for the bike and $3500 worth of accessories.

On a side note, when the tow truck came to pick it up, much of it was disassembled due to what the insurance company wouldn't cover in accessories that I was told I could keep.   But, there were parts there that went with the bike.   They weren't interested in loading it up.   I called the adjuster and he told me not to worry about it and do whatever with the parts.   I still have that email, just in case. 

Rams

[98valk]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."   


Rams

u should have said  No, its a tire like the tires used on trikes, cam-ams, sling shots, etc.

[Rams]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."  


Rams

u should have said  No, its a tire like the tires used on trikes, cam-ams, sling shots, etc.

Except, it's not a three wheeler.   If one wants an honest response, one doesn't talk around the issue.   I wanted to know (even if it meant they denied the claim).   Truthfulness normally gets truthful answers.

There was no denying a car tire was on the bike when it was crashed (not that you suggested that) but, there was also no reason to defend running that tire by applying the question to motorcycles it wasn't applicable to.   Just my opinion, others may differ.

Rams

[98valk]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."  


Rams

u should have said  No, its a tire like the tires used on trikes, cam-ams, sling shots, etc.

Except, it's not a three wheeler.   If one wants an honest response, one doesn't talk around the issue.   I wanted to know (even if it meant they denied the claim).   Truthfulness normally gets truthful answers.

There was no denying a car tire was on the bike when it was crashed (not that you suggested that) but, there was also no reason to defend running that tire by applying the question to motorcycles it wasn't applicable to.   Just my opinion, others may differ.

Rams

the point is, the sling shot is classified as a motorcycle, and uses tires that are also used on automobiles.

https://www.pirelli.com/tires/en-us/car/catalog/car-brand/polaris/slingshot/2021

https://www.pirelli.com/tires/en-us/car/products/us:us_en:polaris:slingshotsl:2.4l173:2014:0?size=205_50R17|265/35R18&year=2021&zipcode=08078

[Rams]

Interesting question.  I think everyone's heard the tale, but no one's seen any evidence.  However, I find myself wondering if that's simply because adjusters are not clued into the possibilities.  In other words, if they had thought to notice it, would they squawk it?  I'm really interested in whether there's been a case where the insurance company was aware of the tire type and made a point to dismiss it as a factor.
Unfortunately, there's too much at stake to risk volunteering that info to the insurance company and asking them if it will affect payout.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way vilifying car tires.  I have one on my Valkyrie right now.  I'm just interested in data collection.

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."  


Rams

u should have said  No, its a tire like the tires used on trikes, cam-ams, sling shots, etc.

Except, it's not a three wheeler.   If one wants an honest response, one doesn't talk around the issue.   I wanted to know (even if it meant they denied the claim).   Truthfulness normally gets truthful answers.

There was no denying a car tire was on the bike when it was crashed (not that you suggested that) but, there was also no reason to defend running that tire by applying the question to motorcycles it wasn't applicable to.   Just my opinion, others may differ.

Rams

the point is, the sling shot is classified as a motorcycle, and uses tires that are also used on automobiles.

https://www.pirelli.com/tires/en-us/car/catalog/car-brand/polaris/slingshot/2021

https://www.pirelli.com/tires/en-us/car/products/us:us_en:polaris:slingshotsl:2.4l173:2014:0?size=205_50R17|265/35R18&year=2021&zipcode=08078

Your point is not lost on me, just not applicable or need to argue the point with the adjuster because, as he stated, there was no issue so, why even mention that.

Rams

[Rocketman]

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."   I questioned him on whether or not that was gonna be a problem, he stated that he knew of no issue from the insurance policy so, I got paid for the bike and $3500 worth of accessories.

I didn't see where you had explicitly had the conversation about it.  I thought perhaps he just hadn't noticed.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Rams]

As I previously said, my adjuster noticed the car tire on my crashed Valkyrie, he even stated, "Oh, you've got a car tire on it."   I questioned him on whether or not that was gonna be a problem, he stated that he knew of no issue from the insurance policy so, I got paid for the bike and $3500 worth of accessories.

I didn't see where you had explicitly had the conversation about it.  I thought perhaps he just hadn't noticed.  Thanks for the clarification.

Well, it wasn't in the first posting.  My fault.   Somewhere in the middle of this thread.

Rams