Quote:
Originally Posted by speedshftr
thanks for all the input.
this coming from a guy with a car with a plane engine in it is funny/lol
Food for thought...
If you remove the marker lights on a car that is supposed to have them. If say...somebody runs into you at night from the side and they say they didn't see you...Can the insurance co decline coverage because you removed the lights ? Will the other guys insurance co come after you based on you removing required safety devices ? I'm guessing yes. If your car had them i would leave them.
__________________
|
The answer is "maybe."
It depends on the facts of the crash, the insurance company itself and it's tenacity to save a buck, and a ton of other factors to include how much of a factor the side marker lights played in the causation of the crash.
There may be some loss mitigation, but to deny coverage, not likely.
But there's no blanket answer to your question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clill
ahhh but my car has all it's lights, horn wipers etc.
As for a jury in the case of a couple marker lights missing...Were they removed on purpose like on this Camaro we are talking about ? The marker lights were federally mandated for safety. If you purposely remove them is different that just having a couple broken. In fact if I'm your insurance company I probably have a basis for denial of coverage. I'm not a attorney or Insurance Co but I think I've been around enough to know how they think. Not worth all the headache in my opinion. And if I sell my Camaro that I removed the marker lights from and the next guy gets killed by someone that hits him broadside at night I will bet somebody comes after me because of no side marker lights. The guy getting killed might not have been because of the lights being removed but a attorney will love chasing you for money and you will hate paying another attorney to defend you. Keeps the attorneys happy though.
|
I'm around these types daily.
No insurance company adjuster is going to try to deny coverage based solely on marker lights, unless they are the proximate cause of the crash.
Again, if all the other lights are functional, it's going to be difficult to convince anyone that you couldn't see, and subsequently struck, this full sized car because it didn't have a 4-6" marker light on the fender
In the case of the semi, it was more years of neglect than an intentional act, but it still fits the bill for this discussion.
Some had been broken, or fallen off, tape had been scraped off, and overall the trailer was a real POS.
Then again, it's
still a BMF aluminum trailer, attached to a
BMF white (in this case) Peterbuilt (IIRC), and I'd venture to say, at least 85-90%+ of it's lights and safety gear was present and functional.
If you can't see all that, the tape and lights aren't going to make much difference
It was really more of an example of a desperate attorney grasping for straws
Federal mandates are great, and if you can prove that the lack of mandated safety equipment was again, the proximate cause of the accident, then you may have something.
In cases like this, doing so is going to be a hugely difficult task.
If anything, an insurance company may use the information in loss mitigation negotiations.
Overall, federal and state mandates are more $$$ makers for DOT and the like since they're enforceable and subsequently fineable.
Another thing that you have to remember, is most attorney's are
MONEY driven.
If there's no money to chase, there's no payday for them in the end, most private attorney's won't touch the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The WidowMaker
can someone tell me a situation where you could get broadsided at night and it not be your fault to begin with? im being serious. i cant think of a situation. and then to not be able to see the headlights?
|
Sure, plenty.
-DUI drivers
-Someone else failing to stop at a sign or light
-Someone making a left turn, etc.
Worked all of these on numerous occasions.
Quote:
|
if i was a defense lawyer i would just snap some pics of the car sideways with the headlights on. its pretty obvious even without side markers.
|
Sorry man, don't mean to chuckle, and I realize you're serious, but it's just not that simple.
We'll assume of course that the crash occurred at night, and you're the striking vehicle, striking mine with no side markers, and that one of us failed to yield the right of way to the other.
Here's some questions to be answered:
1) Were YOUR headlights operational?
2) What is the distance they project?
3) Were my headlights on? (this pertains to your side view picture suggestion)
4) What was the roadway condition? Straight line? Curve? Incline/decline?
5) What were the weather conditions? Fog? Rain? Haze? Full moon?
6) What was the street lighting? Type? Halogen? Old school bulb? None?
7) What color was the car?
8) Had you been drinking? Were you fatigued?
9) Were you otherwise distracted by a Phone, text, laptop, conversation, roadhead
(ok, had to throw that one in there
)
These are just a few things that have to be considered.
With the exception of heavy haze/fog/rain, and that does have to be considered and may make a difference with the markers, there's just not much there that markers can resolve.
If I failed to yield, the side markers are a moot issue.
If you failed to yield, again, the side markers are likely to become a moot or very minimal issue.
Quote:
|
semi's are different though. an unmarked 50' long trailer can be dangerous.
|
I agree 100% there. This one was not unmarked, just not properly marked.
The plaintiff's counsel tried to use DOT regs to make his dumbass client look good
Would I keep the markers if they were already there?
Yes!
Would I have them removed for a smooth look?
No.
It violates both federal and most state DMV laws.
Would I reinstall them once they were gone?
Probably not.....but that's just me
Brian Hobaugh SCCA National Tour June 2014
First Hemi 'Cuda Convertible Ever Built
Short clips: Goodguys Pleasanton autocross and pit videos
Linear Mode
