Quote:
Originally Posted by memason
While this seems an intuitive statement and I have no doubt an agent stated this, I'm not sure it would be legal for them to refuse coverage, based upon a speed modification. If it isn't written in the policy, it would be hard to enforce. This would be the same as you changing the type of tire on your car and then your agent telling you the tires were not as safe as the original equipment; therefore, no coverage....or more specifically, you modify your cars performance in one way or another and then your insurance is voided.
Just my thinking and that's why there are exclusions on your policy...
|
Oh yes, it WOULD be legal to deny coverage - because it would no longer meet the Definition of the covered vehicle. I'm a former auto insurance claims adjuster, and believe me, we were trained to look for these things and deny coverage when it is appropriate - and it is appropriate if it doesn't meet the definition.
Please note there is a DIFFERENCE between an insurance agent (who sells policies) and an insurance adjuster (who handles claims on policies). Just because an agent told you something was covered does NOT mean that it actually is. Trust me on this one.
Some coverage exclusions are spelled out - but not all. There is a lot of gray area, but normally courts (where policy language is tested regularly) always go back to the Definitions. Of course, juries can mostly decide anything they want, but insurance companies have the means to pursue an unfavorable judgment further (by appealing). I personally wouldn't want to take the chance.