Builds Shipwreck (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

I checked with a number of insurers and none would allow 44 to be insured as a 'collector', unless I kept it on-road and some even insisted on 'limited mileage'...

I bought her to drive her wherever I wanted to take her, so, in the end, I added her to our existent State Farm Insurance policy... they said to 'make sure you take pictures of all mods and store them securely with all invoices'... who knows whether they would actually 'pay close to actual value'...

I quit worry about it... I try to be safe on-road and off-road, so hopefully, the premiums I pay will be a complete waste of money :hmm:

But, if anyone finds insurance that insures 'actual value' or insures 'actual appraised (by them) value AND unlimited off-road use, please advertise the company and even the agent... I'd be shocked if they would really pay for damages incurred off-road...
 
There are two components to insurance. Liability, and Loss. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot get basic liability to satisfy your state requirements, and seek bonding (e.g. how ships are insured). The biggest issue that comes up when you combine liability and loss is your insurance company is an utter PITA when it comes to loss on a collector vehicle. That said, they do a pretty good job of liability coverage. Dividing the the two can save you money and give you far better coverage. I always advise stated-value loss policies. Far too often I have people in my office who didn't realize that Farmers (the worst of the bunch IMO) was only going to pay them $200 for their 50 year-old car. While you can fight the valuation, keep in mind that, at best, you'll get, at most, 50 cents of every dollar because you'll have to pay an attorney to pursue litigation for you. It isn't uncommon to spend more then the policy pays to litigate this. State Farm is, by far and away, the worst of these - they will litigate merely to be sure their insured doesn't see benefit. All policies have limitations on disputes and attorney's fees - some states have addressed this; but the general rule is you are responsible for your own attorney's fees in a contract dispute.

^is a brief, overview, there is a lot more to it but that at least gives you the basics: divide the policy, be certain you have stated value, and really know the fine print about dispute litigation.... some are amazingly one-sided (and it's not going to be your side)
 
SuperBuickGuy said:
There are two components to insurance. Liability, and Loss. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot get basic liability to satisfy your state requirements, and seek bonding (e.g. how ships are insured). The biggest issue that comes up when you combine liability and loss is your insurance company is an utter PITA when it comes to loss on a collector vehicle. That said, they do a pretty good job of liability coverage. Dividing the the two can save you money and give you far better coverage. I always advise stated-value loss policies. Far too often I have people in my office who didn't realize that Farmers (the worst of the bunch IMO) was only going to pay them $200 for their 50 year-old car. While you can fight the valuation, keep in mind that, at best, you'll get, at most, 50 cents of every dollar because you'll have to pay an attorney to pursue litigation for you. It isn't uncommon to spend more then the policy pays to litigate this. State Farm is, by far and away, the worst of these - they will litigate merely to be sure their insured doesn't see benefit. All policies have limitations on disputes and attorney's fees - some states have addressed this; but the general rule is you are responsible for your own attorney's fees in a contract dispute.

^is a brief, overview, there is a lot more to it but that at least gives you the basics: divide the policy, be certain you have stated value, and really know the fine print about dispute litigation.... some are amazingly one-sided (and it's not going to be your side)
Click to expand...

I'm well covered on liability... But... do you know of stated value policies that actually pay when the damage occurs off-road? If so, who offers the policy?

Thanks!
 
it depends on whether or not they know the damage occurred "off-road"
In the definitions, which are on pretty much every policy, defines what "off-road" means. And that brings up this - know what your policy covers - the time it's too late is when you need it. Many times "off-road" can be "roads for which the vehicle was not designed" or "any state or federally designated route" (which would include the Rubicon trail). Insurance companies have to be careful - say you have a chargeable offense (your fault, or unknown other driver) where you drove off the road into a ditch - they can't exclude that. What most will do is, if they don't use "road" language, is they disclaim any event. It could be a poker run, or a rock-bouncing event that will cause your protection to be disclaimed by the ins. company.

Too often I spend my time undoing what a person says - they'll say "oh I was off-road" when the policy states any state/fed road. The ins. company says "oh, that's not covered because you were off-road"... and litigation ensues (presuming the claimant knows or learns that it was not properly paid)... which then turns into a failure to pay which is a tort and entitles the claimant to 3x the value of the claim plus attorney's fees.

Of course, to quote the Incredibles - insurance companies don't make money paying claims (adjusters HATE that line :)) and that is doubly true if they can convince you that you aren't, actually covered, when you were.

Know your policy, that's the single most important rule - know how they define key terms.
 
The only thing I'm really worried about is theft. If I fawk up my truck on the trail that's part of the game. If I total it on the highway I'll find another truck and transplant the expensive bits into that. If someone else totals it on the highway I'll get an attorney; the mental anguish of loosing a truck I've had for so long and invested so many hours in modifying would be unbearable.
 
rusty_tlc said:
The only thing I'm really worried about is theft. If I fawk up my truck on the trail that's part of the game. If I total it on the highway I'll find another truck and transplant the expensive bits into that. If someone else totals it on the highway I'll get an attorney; the mental anguish of loosing a truck I've had for so long and invested so many hours in modifying would be unbearable.
Click to expand...

That's what I fear as well.
 
Apologies to Buickguy for the derailment.
Back to the regularly scheduled programming.
 
not quite, I'm in desperate need of another pickup truck - so the FJ is on the back burner for a day or two...


trust me, it looks far worse in person - but it's not rusty, the motor runs well, and its issue - missing transmission - I have another that I've already installed... I just need to get it on the road, then back to the '40. my apologies for the delays.
 
That pickup's sure a change of pace for you isn't it? I had a 67, which was the first year for that body style. 67 was the only year that the hood had a slope to the front of it, and a small rear window. As far as I can tell all the other years had an abrupt, and taller, front edge to the hood, and a large back window, like can be seen in your pic.

Got more pics, from other sides, of the "new" rig?

Don
 
back on the '40
first step, mount the taller springs


and I still can't convince the spring/coil-over dealer to send me 150# springs... I know he's trying to help and I'm trying to maintain my sense of humor.

onto the rear swing-carriers


I was going to go with 1 pivot, but the tire is a monster that is going to be on there, add 10 or 15 gallons of fuel, a cooler and a hi-lift jack - and hanging off one would really stress the mounts and the poor sap who has to push it uphill to lock it or try to hold it open when the vehicle is aiming downhill.... so two it is.



ever look at a mounting spot and think "that's way too good"... yeah, this is protected yet accessible... but before I make it permanent I'm going to consider it a bit more
 
handcannon said:
That pickup's sure a change of pace for you isn't it? I had a 67, which was the first year for that body style. 67 was the only year that the hood had a slope to the front of it, and a small rear window. As far as I can tell all the other years had an abrupt, and taller, front edge to the hood, and a large back window, like can be seen in your pic.

Got more pics, from other sides, of the "new" rig?

Don
Click to expand...

I like many things - but in this case, I needed a cheap truck but not one that I'd lose my shirt on when I sold it. In this case, nice examples of them sell in the 10-20k range with crap @1500. this was 550
Orangutruck - The BangShift.com Forums

it needed a transmission but I have a working one that's been sitting for a bit...

I don't know about change of pace.
past projects





I like cars, I don't like stock cars... but I've run the gamut on projects.... and those are the most recent, there's dozens that aren't on the 'net.
 
Sorry, I wasn't real clear. I need to clarify the term "change of pace", I was thinking about from your current project.

Nice pics there. I really like your first pic of the square body.

Don
 
I need to come over and see your rig in person. I have some good first hand experience with tire carriers and undersized hinges and what happens when said hinge shears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom