Insurance Issue with Car Tire??

[donaldcc]

  In this month's Motorcycle Consumer News a reader writes in asking about an insurer possibly denying a claim because the rider had a car tire.  A lawyer from WV replies that "it is prima facie negligence to run a car tire on a motorcycle, period."

Prima facie (definition) is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

The lawyer then goes on to say that determination of fault of the CT rider would be determined by expert testimony to sort out whether the CT contributed to, or did not contribute to the claim being made.  He says "if the rider's control is diminished due to the installation of obviously improper equipment on the bike, that factor can impute significant negligence to the offending rider."   ???

Sounds like he does not like CT on motorcycle.

So . . . Have any of you darksiders EVER had any type insurance claim denied because of CT?  Or have you ever had any type hassle from LEO for CT?

Oh, I have regular motorcycle tire, but wondering if this attorney has any basis for his opinion.    

[KY,Dave (AKA Misunderstood)]

Never a claim so I don't know there and am sure others will chime in on it. As far as a leo giving trouble, never had any issues when running a car tire.

[R J]

NO claims and no problem in over 155K+ miles of a CT.

My Insurance agent saw it and said, hey you got some serious rubber on the ground.

[Chrisj CMA]

I dont run a car tire, but I have had several motorcycle insurance policies.  NEVER once did any employee of whatever insurance co I was using...they never saw my motorcycle.....never. 

[Oss]

guys like that give us hard working motorcycle loving fellows a bad reputation   



I dont run a car tire but would sure like to speak with him or send him an email as he needs to brush up on his latin

 

too bad we dont have a smiley for " Prima facie this...."

[Willow]

... he needs to brush up on his latin

Certainly he could use some instruction on the proper application of his Latin.    

[donaldcc]

guys like that give us hard working motorcycle loving fellows a bad reputation   



I dont run a car tire but would sure like to speak with him or send him an email as he needs to brush up on his latin

 

too bad we dont have a smiley for " Prima facie this...."

I agree with you!!  I really like Motorcycle Consumer News as there is no advertising, supported by subscriptions.  don't think this attorney is the guy to be writing and giving opinions for them.  I may send an email out to the magazine.

His name is Harry Deitzler.  Email at harry@motorcyclejustice.com   Law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper Bee and Deitzler, Charleston, WV  

[sugerbear]

i've been in two accidents(neither my fault) both had car tires. not a word was said in either.

ins paid like their supposed to.  maybe i've been lucky(with that)

seem to attract dumbshi$$ into hitting me.

one was a dunba$$ on his cell phone, i was at a stop light, the other was an off duty city of st louis cop, he ran a stoplight.

[Serk]

The last time this came up I contacted my insurer (Progressive) and flat out asked them. I was put in touch with the head guy over the recreational vehicles department, and he flat out, unequivocally said running a car tire would have no impact on the insurability of the vehicle, or impact on any claims.

As he pointed out, the whole thing is kinda a moot point seeing as Boss Hoss motorcycles ship, from the factory, with those evil CAR TIRES on them.

[Jess from VA]

From one attorney to another,  Harry Deitzler is prima facie full of it.  

The discussion regarding expert testimony is factually correct however.

IF the car tire was proven by a preponderance of the evidence in a given case to be all or part of the actual cause of damages or injuries (say like bald tires), it could be a factor in a damage award, like anything else .  Best of luck with that.  

However, there is no presumption of negligence (or prima facie evidence of negligence) for running a car tire; a plaintiff's attorney would have to prove his case, with no short cuts.  

[Valker]

I looked at all of my tires on the 4 cars and three bikes. Not a single one of them said either "car use only" or "motorcycle use only".

[Walküre]

too bad we dont have a smiley for " Prima facie this...."

I DO have one, OSS, but unfortunately (or maybe, fortunately??), Willow would chop my post in a New York Minute, being family-oriented and all...   

I'm running an Altimax, and guess I'll deal with it, if and when the time comes, but I don't see how it's any different than the bunches of cars I see running the spare "bagel", until it's bare, or the one I saw with TWO bagels, kitty-corner to each other!

[bigguy]

too bad we dont have a smiley for " Prima facie this...."

[Jabba]

I ASKED my insurance people too.

They said the same.  No issue with it what-so-ever.

Jabba

[Willow]

Logically, if the responsibility of your insurance provider could be negated by your won contributory negligence, then they would pay in the event you ran a stoplight and were struck or failed to yield and were deemed at fault for an accident.  I can see how an insurance company, whether right or wrong, could refuse to accept a policy for a vehicle they believed to be unsafe, but once the policy is in force, you're covered.

It's a groundless myth that just keeps popping up. 

[B]

Never had a claim ... But don't recall a "firery car tire death clause" in my policy.   ... Another starving lawyer with too much time on his hands perhaps? =D