Bumper Removal, mmmm......

[06gt1858]

After being in the Insurance business for 30 years, it comes down to a simple issue..The underwriter(insurance company) must specificly exclude the issue in the policy...period. the only blanket exclution they can use are things like "Act of war or Act of God"........I know if you can afford a GT you are most likly sucsessfull and smart, and a quick read of the policy exclutions will soon show you that there are not many.... As an example if you have a child that does not live with you(At School) , you can "lend her a car" and if she does not have a car or insurance on her own "you don't have to list her on your policy as a driver" (this can save you a ton if your kid is as bad of a driver as mine). and you will have coverage, if you have the lender(ok to lend your car to others) endorsment in most states, some states it's automatic. The point being the Insurance company can't get that specific about the lending of the car and to who! (it limits there ability to share the risk with the other party who was involved in the incident, as the old saying goes the least said the better) same goes with Mods such as bumper delete. Now a good point to remember is that an Insurance company can fight you on any claim..but in the end unless it's excluded in the policy they have to pay, then most likly resulting in a non-renewal. Consulting your agent and getting the issue resolved in writing from him / her is best way to sleep at nite....

So to an end " If God comes and steals your Bumper your screwed" :rofl

 

[Gulf GT]

I just got a phone call from my State Farm agent. I had asked her last week to call Underwriting and get a definite word on removing the bumper. She just told me that State Farm Underwriting told her it would be taken on a "case by case" basis, and the possibility of a "coverage issue" arising from removing the bumper could be likely in the right circumstances. Not a definite yes and not a definite no. She also told me that they definitely "perked up" when they heard that anyone was thinking of removing the bumper. It was made very clear to her that State Farm views the bumper as an integral part of the safety system of the car. So whether or not you personally happen to believe the bumper is or it isn't an integral part of the safety system on the car, I think it's worth noting the direction the insurance company is already leaning. I for one don’t want to get into a situation where I have to spend $50,000-100,000 on attorneys and legal experts to try and convince them in a process where it’s my only hope of saving my home from the vultures. And from what I have seen in the past with the behavior of insurance companies in “gray” areas, their statements today make me extremely nervous about taking the bumper off. I also just called the service departments of a few car dealers (Ford & GMC authorized) in the area, and asked them if they would remove the bumper on my cars, and the told me not under any circumstances would they do it. Their “exact” words were that it would compromise the “safety” of the vehicle. Again, for me personally I have way too much to lose, and I am not willing to roll the dice over something as trivial as the aesthetics of removing the bumper, and definitely not after this morning’s conversations.

 

[06gt1858]

The point being from your agent "she dosn't have a clue" and wants to stay to the Old Boys insurance modo "the least said the better" (I know I am one) you are coverd enless it is "specificly excluded"

 

[Empty Pockets]

The point being from your agent "she dosn't have a clue" ...you are coverd enless it is "specificly excluded"

Gulf's point seems valid thought about having to spend bazillions of dollars one way or the other as a result of the ins co - or whomever - fighting the issue. 'Cause, until the ins co pays up, there are 1,000 ways YOU could be paying the freight.

 

[Shadowman]

The point being from your agent "she dosn't have a clue" and wants to stay to the Old Boys insurance modo "the least said the better" (I know I am one) you are coverd enless it is "specificly excluded"

Well said and absolutely true

Not to drag this issue on but the exposure as defined and accepted by the insurance companies is based on the norm and they understand that they will also have "out of the box" issues arrive. Even acts of God are not clearly defined as such the general run of thumb = covered unless excluded and then even a signed understanding of the exclusion may not protect them; meaning the insurance company because the presentation made to the policy holder maybe be deemed less than clear or an abnormal request.

The bottom-line folks; enjoy your gals

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Gulf GT]

you are coverd enless it is "specificly excluded"

That statement is generally accepted as true, but there have been many cases where the insurance company has fought over coverage on issues not "specifically excluded" and won.

 

[THamonGT]

Rear Bumper

If I were to turn my GT into a museum piece to look at and not drive I could see removing the rear bumper and admiring the new found beauty but after reading these comments on this FORUM my rear bumper is looking BEAUTIFUL. I will also enjoy the piece of mind and less liability. Ain't it even looking georgous:wink :banana TGH

 

[Gulf GT]

Gulf's point seems valid thought about having to spend bazillions of dollars one way or the other as a result of the ins co - or whomever - fighting the issue. 'Cause, until the ins co pays up, there are 1,000 ways YOU could be paying the freight.

And, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you can't be found liable for amounts exceeding your coverage. A few years back someone disabled their passenger air bag, had an accident, and was sued by the passenger. The driver/owner was found liable, as disabling the air bag was found as a “deliberate” act under the law, just like removing the bumper is a “deliberate” act. That particular case comes to mind for something very close to removing the bumper in legal precedence. Also, the way our "deep pocket" laws work, you could be found only 5% at fault for actions contributing to an accident, but 100% liable for the monetary judgment. Thus the logic of the being hit from the rear by an uninsured jerk who wants to take your family fortune.

 

[BlackICE]

And, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you can't be found liable for amounts exceeding your coverage. A few years back someone disabled their passenger air bag, had an accident, and was sued by the passenger. The driver/owner was found liable, as disabling the air bag was found as a “deliberate” act under the law, just like removing the bumper is a “deliberate” act. That particular case comes to mind for something very close to removing the bumper in legal precedence. Also, the way our "deep pocket" laws work, you could be found only 5% at fault for actions contributing to an accident, but 100% liable for the monetary judgment. Thus the logic of the being hit from the rear by an uninsured jerk who wants to take your family fortune.

Would an example be an uninsured, unlicensed, illegal aliens driver rear ends you at a stoplight at 40 mph. Your passenger, a well know plastic surgeon in Hollywood, gets whiplash and becomes a quadriplegic. You did nothing wrong, but the surgeon's sues you and the alien driver and the courts find through expert witness testimony finds that because you removed the bumper contributed to the plaintiffs injuries by 5%. The judgment is 20 million dollar, 15 million for loss income and 5 million for current and future medical expenses. Since the true party that cause the accident does not have any assets, you are stuck with the entire judgment 20 million judgment!

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this can really happen. I will defer to the opnions of the real lawyers on this board. Can this happen?

 

[Empty Pockets]

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this can really happen. I will defer to the opnions of the real lawyers on this board. Can this happen?

You don't NEED to be a lawyer to see where it could happen as you outlined, Ice. Look at the judgement Stella Liebeck got (origionally) from McDonald's FOR SPILLING HER OWN HOT COFFEE IN HER OWN STUPID LAP. Or the doofus who fell thru the skylite of a business he was in the process of trying to burglarize, broke his leg, etc., SUED the business for his injuries - AND WON!!!! The list is endless...

Our legal system is just THAT - a "legal system" ...it's not a JUSTICE system.

(For THAT matter - look at the outcome of the O.J. trial. Case closed.)

 

[06gt1858]

And, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you can't be found liable for amounts exceeding your coverage. A few years back someone disabled their passenger air bag, had an accident, and was sued by the passenger. The driver/owner was found liable, as disabling the air bag was found as a “deliberate” act under the law, just like removing the bumper is a “deliberate” act. That particular case comes to mind for something very close to removing the bumper in legal precedence. Also, the way our "deep pocket" laws work, you could be found only 5% at fault for actions contributing to an accident, but 100% liable for the monetary judgment. Thus the logic of the being hit from the rear by an uninsured jerk who wants to take your family fortune.

Amounts exceeding coverage is a whole Diff story. Because you are from Calif, my home state....All auto policys are "broad Form".
Looking at this from an insiders point of view,( I design Insurance policy form) the State has put very tight restrictions to protect the consumer..(Just so happens the Insurance Commissioners office is actually helping) therefore leaving the burdon on the Insurance company to pay-up!! Lots of companys choose to stay out of Calif due to the heavy restrictions on comanys to use "broad Form policys" (broad form meaning use "specific exlcutions" only listed in the contract).

The bumper issue is an issue designed for not so much safty standards but for protection standards lobbyed by the insurance comanys to aviod big damage to rear of car (or front) from a slow impact. It's cheaper to replace a 10 mph bumper than 2 rear panels and trunk lid..ect....

My point is that even if by some strange situation the bumper deleate came into play the Insurance comany would still be on the hook.

Another thing that may help you is that umbrella policys are also Broad Form and some will cover if the underlining policy does not.... As a proffestional in the Insurance game I just want to help all of you as you have helped me on "car issues" GREAT FORUM!!!!!

PS My spelling is so bad excuse me..."If you can't spell Hire someone who can" Henry Ford 1930

 

[Gulf GT]

My point is that even if by some strange situation the bumper deleate came into play the Insurance comany would still be on the hook.

Thank you 06GT1858 for chiming in and I hear what you are saying. But since the underwriters won't give me a written agreement that it would be covered (I asked for it today and they refused), and they have used the language I heard today, I'm going to keep my bumper on the car.

 

[Shadowman]

Sadly I no longer feel that this thread has meaning but rather is deviling into areas that for me are not even moderately interesting. Certainly I remain aware of my exposure and as I refer to it the cost of admission or the cost to play and yet if I were to sit back and think about all the ways that one could conceivably initiate a lawsuit I likely would never get out of bed and maybe even look for Dr. Kavorcian to make the transport easier.

I am truly sorry to say and feel this way and in doing so mean no disrespect.

In this litigious world of ours you can be sued for anything including the driving of a car that you can not (subjectively speaking) control.

Being sued sadly is more often times than not based on whether the attorney feels that they can acquire assets as such most settlements fall within the limits of the policy. Now certainly there are exceptions but what I share is the norm. The comparison of the illegal alien causing the issue thus creating a back door means to tap into the secondary person’s coverage is interesting but would be stopped at your uninsured motorist coverage up to the maximum coverage that you elected to pay for.

Here is the real issue; IF you folks have concerns for being sued because of a rear bumper delete then I suggest that you carefully review your policies and either significantly increase your limits or purchase an umbrella policy with numerous cross over coverage’s.

Remember the saying that you insure to protect and not to invest; sorry for those selling Whole Life Policies and in saying this one would not purchase a 1m policy if their exposure to loss is significantly less because in the end one would typically go Bankrupt. And yes; there are times that Bankruptcy will not stop a judgment however comparatively speaking these are very rare.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Gulf GT]

As my insurance agent said today, "I think we've ground this one down to sawdust"! All the angles appear to be covered here. Thank you for everyone's input.

 

[SYCO GT]

Remember also that for the most part, there has to be a client for there to be an attorney pursuing a frivolous claim.

I genuinely do not know attorneys in certain practice areas of law, since I have had no occasion to use them, do not refer them, and hopefully do not foresee such need in the future.

Sure, as in much in life, there are also unsavory characters in every profession, no matter how noble, but in the legal profession, clients are typically required, and in some cases, just as questionable.

 

[Quickdraw]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the GT construction, but are you talking about removing the bumper, or the bumper COVER? If its just a cosmetic bumper cover it shouldn't make any difference....

 

[californiacuda]

As I said originally, the reason for not removing the bumper, because it could increase ones legal exposure is so obvious that it shouldn't even be mentioned. The same justification could be used for almost any performance mod.

 

[FlorIdaho Chris]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the GT construction, but are you talking about removing the bumper, or the bumper COVER? If its just a cosmetic bumper cover it shouldn't make any difference....

The discussion is about the removal of the entire bumper, not just a cover.

 

[OCPETE]

Hands down..Bill IS this forum's resident poetic genius :thumbsup