wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:59:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"akheel" wrote in message
...

Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a major
cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?
Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that occurs due
to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage may void your
insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to yourself or others.

Eisboch

Might expose you to criminal liability as well.



Loogy is into stupidity, not safety. He thinks winning a Darwin Award is
a good thing.

"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...


Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a
major cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?

Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that
occurs due to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage may
void your insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to yourself
or others.

Eisboch


Sorry, that's not correct, unless you policy has a specific exclusion for
that act. Insurance covers stupidity (legally called "negligence").
That's what it's for. What it doesn't cover is trying to inflict injury
on purpose, or so doing something so stupid as injury is the inevitable
result, even if the injury wasn't intended (no officer, I wasn't trying
to hit those pedistrians as I drove down the sidewalk as a shortcut). The
way they cover the risk is to try to determine the dummies up front (poor
driving record, teenager etc.). They charge those people higher premiums,
and on average, even with a few payouts, they usually make out well. And
even if they misjudge you upfront, they get you in the end by raising
your premium if you cause an accident.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:01:56 GMT, akheel
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...


Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a
major cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?

Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that
occurs due to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage may
void your insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to yourself
or others.

Eisboch


Sorry, that's not correct, unless you policy has a specific exclusion for
that act. Insurance covers stupidity (legally called "negligence").
That's what it's for. What it doesn't cover is trying to inflict injury
on purpose, or so doing something so stupid as injury is the inevitable
result, even if the injury wasn't intended (no officer, I wasn't trying
to hit those pedistrians as I drove down the sidewalk as a shortcut). The
way they cover the risk is to try to determine the dummies up front (poor
driving record, teenager etc.). They charge those people higher premiums,
and on average, even with a few payouts, they usually make out well. And
even if they misjudge you upfront, they get you in the end by raising
your premium if you cause an accident.

Guess again!

"akheel" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...


Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a
major cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?

Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that
occurs due to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage may
void your insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to yourself
or others.

Eisboch


Sorry, that's not correct, unless you policy has a specific exclusion for
that act. Insurance covers stupidity (legally called "negligence").
That's what it's for. What it doesn't cover is trying to inflict injury
on purpose, or so doing something so stupid as injury is the inevitable
result, even if the injury wasn't intended (no officer, I wasn't trying
to hit those pedistrians as I drove down the sidewalk as a shortcut). The
way they cover the risk is to try to determine the dummies up front (poor
driving record, teenager etc.). They charge those people higher premiums,
and on average, even with a few payouts, they usually make out well. And
even if they misjudge you upfront, they get you in the end by raising
your premium if you cause an accident.


That may be your take, but if you take the time to check this out I think
you will find you are in error. I did check.

Contrary to your statement, insurance isn't designed to protect stupidity or
negligence (thankfully). It's designed to provide financial protection in
the event of an accident. Knowingly and willfully driving with a damaged
and repaired tire against virtually all tire manufacturer's or industry
repair facility policies isn't an accident. It's stupidity.

Eisboch

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:34:31 GMT, akheel
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in
m:


"akheel" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...


Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a
major cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?

Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that
occurs due to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage
may void your insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to
yourself or others.

Eisboch


Sorry, that's not correct, unless you policy has a specific exclusion
for that act. Insurance covers stupidity (legally called
"negligence"). That's what it's for. What it doesn't cover is trying
to inflict injury on purpose, or so doing something so stupid as
injury is the inevitable result, even if the injury wasn't intended
(no officer, I wasn't trying to hit those pedistrians as I drove down
the sidewalk as a shortcut). The way they cover the risk is to try to
determine the dummies up front (poor driving record, teenager etc.).
They charge those people higher premiums, and on average, even with a
few payouts, they usually make out well. And even if they misjudge
you upfront, they get you in the end by raising your premium if you
cause an accident.


That may be your take, but if you take the time to check this out I
think you will find you are in error. I did check.

Contrary to your statement, insurance isn't designed to protect
stupidity or negligence (thankfully). It's designed to provide
financial protection in the event of an accident. Knowingly and
willfully driving with a damaged and repaired tire against virtually
all tire manufacturer's or industry repair facility policies isn't an
accident. It's stupidity.

Eisboch



Prove it. Point out one case where 3rd pary liability insurance coverage
was denied due to the negligence of the insured and not based on a
specific exclusion in the policy. Your statements reflects what are
unfortunately widespread, but misinformed beliefs about insurance that
pop on this board about once a year. I don't mean any insult to you, but
I want to stop the spread of misinformation. Part of the problem is
confusion between property coverage (which covers my stuff) and liability
coverage (which covers me if I hurt somebody else's person or property);
Property coverage often has exclusions for things arising out of my own
negligence. On the flip side, liability insurance only covers you when
you are negligent, or somebody claims you were. No negligence, no
liability. By DEFINITION, I can only be liable to you in an accident, if
I was negligent, i.e. did something I wasn't supposed to do, and that's
why my liability insuranc will cover me. I'll put my law degree up
against yours any day.

Criminal Negligence.

"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in
:


"akheel" wrote in message
...


Did it ever occur to you that the reason sidewall patches are not a
major cause of blowouts, is because nobody but you does them?

Not to beat a dead horse about this subject but an accident that
occurs due to a blowout of a "repaired" tire with sidewall damage
may void your insurance coverage for vehicle damage and injury to
yourself or others.

Eisboch


Sorry, that's not correct, unless you policy has a specific exclusion
for that act. Insurance covers stupidity (legally called
"negligence"). That's what it's for. What it doesn't cover is trying
to inflict injury on purpose, or so doing something so stupid as
injury is the inevitable result, even if the injury wasn't intended
(no officer, I wasn't trying to hit those pedistrians as I drove down
the sidewalk as a shortcut). The way they cover the risk is to try to
determine the dummies up front (poor driving record, teenager etc.).
They charge those people higher premiums, and on average, even with a
few payouts, they usually make out well. And even if they misjudge
you upfront, they get you in the end by raising your premium if you
cause an accident.


That may be your take, but if you take the time to check this out I
think you will find you are in error. I did check.

Contrary to your statement, insurance isn't designed to protect
stupidity or negligence (thankfully). It's designed to provide
financial protection in the event of an accident. Knowingly and
willfully driving with a damaged and repaired tire against virtually
all tire manufacturer's or industry repair facility policies isn't an
accident. It's stupidity.

Eisboch



Prove it. Point out one case where 3rd pary liability insurance coverage
was denied due to the negligence of the insured and not based on a
specific exclusion in the policy. Your statements reflects what are
unfortunately widespread, but misinformed beliefs about insurance that
pop on this board about once a year. I don't mean any insult to you, but
I want to stop the spread of misinformation. Part of the problem is
confusion between property coverage (which covers my stuff) and liability
coverage (which covers me if I hurt somebody else's person or property);
Property coverage often has exclusions for things arising out of my own
negligence. On the flip side, liability insurance only covers you when
you are negligent, or somebody claims you were. No negligence, no
liability. By DEFINITION, I can only be liable to you in an accident, if
I was negligent, i.e. did something I wasn't supposed to do, and that's
why my liability insuranc will cover me. I'll put my law degree up
against yours any day.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:39:48 -0400, wrote:

Criminal Negligence.

Many automobile liability claims arise out of criminally negligent
behavior such as DUI or reckless driving. The insurance still pays.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:39:48 -0400, wrote:

Criminal Negligence.

Many automobile liability claims arise out of criminally negligent
behavior such as DUI or reckless driving. The insurance still pays.



A short Google revealed several cases where insurance companies refused
payment of benefits due to faulty equipment either as supplied by the
manufacturer or serious faults or repairs needed that are known by the
vehicle operator/owner.

Our law expert is citing law, not insurance company policies which will vary
from company to company. It doesn't mean, as he suggested, that the
insurance company will prevail in a lawsuit for payment, but in some cases
it may take that to get them to pay up. If he's really a lawyer, he knows
that.

Eisboch

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:07:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:39:48 -0400, wrote:

Criminal Negligence.

Many automobile liability claims arise out of criminally negligent
behavior such as DUI or reckless driving. The insurance still pays.

You'll have to look a little deeper, Wayne. Does your homeowners
insurance cover you if you burn down your house?

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:38:10 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:39:48 -0400, wrote:

Criminal Negligence.

Many automobile liability claims arise out of criminally negligent
behavior such as DUI or reckless driving. The insurance still pays.



A short Google revealed several cases where insurance companies refused
payment of benefits due to faulty equipment either as supplied by the
manufacturer or serious faults or repairs needed that are known by the
vehicle operator/owner.

Our law expert is citing law, not insurance company policies which will vary
from company to company. It doesn't mean, as he suggested, that the
insurance company will prevail in a lawsuit for payment, but in some cases
it may take that to get them to pay up. If he's really a lawyer, he knows
that.

Eisboch

You can be pretty certain he's not a lawyer.