Re: [A/S] water bladder

["sargeant" <sargeant@xxxxxx>]

It depends on the location and on the insurance law in that location. 
Most policies however , are very simular and list the specific things 
that void your liability coverage and that void your "own damage" coverage.
In my province, there are very few things that erase one's liability 
coverage. The provincial authorities want to make it pretty certain that 
if there is liability coverage, the guy who's wronged  gets his.
On the other hand, "own damage coverage" does come with specifics 
regarding alcohol , namely being convicted of impaired driving, being 
over .08mgm% blood alchohol and , strangley, being impaired by drugs or 
alcohol to such a degree as to be incapabable. The last voider I've 
never seen sucessfully used. Also some convictions under the criminal 
code such as dangerous driving etc can lead to loss of own  damage 
coverage. I suppose that if police charged you and you were convicted of 
dangerous driving because your load  was too large, you could lose your 
"own damage" coverage.
In practise, however, these charges are usually dropped or plead down to 
a lesser charge and the insurance company loses it's hook on which to 
hang a denial of comprehensive or collision coverage.

> Not so?  I also was under 
>the impression that published load limits are in point of fact legal 
>documents. I would hate to be put in the position of defending against 
>a tort claim in such an instance.   
>

They are and they aren't . As far as convicting a person under charges 
of dangerous driving, they could be used to estabish mechanical 
capability of the vehicle in criminal court.  It would then hinge on the 
prosecution being able to demonstrate that the driver went ahead and 
drove the vehicle in such an  overloaded state and that doing so 
constituted "dangerous driving" as defined by the Code.
In civil court, if he was charged and/or convicted of dangerous driving, 
that would make defense of his liability in the situation very difficult 
but it would not void his insurance coverage. It would, however, if 
convicted, void his "own damage" cover.

>I've gotta believe that if I were an 
>adjuster and could see an obvious overload condition (and I have done 
>some motor vehicle reconstruction work) my initial reaction would be to 
>deny and let them duke it out in court.
>
You would probably get yourself and your employer in a suit for "bad 
faith" and "punitive damages" . The law, in fact , is very often more 
with the insured that the insurer, and companies don't want to go there.

>
>'Course my kids will all tell you I'm something of a hard..s
>
 I  guess I wasn't enough of a .. >:o .
Sarge