This topic came up some time ago. Many of us have found the idea of paying for a new tire pressure monitor for each wheel of a new set of winter wheels to be an exorbitant expense and prefer the idea of simply running all winter with the little light on our dash. Some concern was that it would deny insurance coverage. Well, it's very easy to find out, so I did. I have Geico and I told them about my 2010 Prius and intent to run this winter on winter wheels deliberately without tire pressure monitoring. I questioned whether I'd maintain coverage or not. The answer just received today: And so, now I know. And maybe some of you do, too, in case you didn't already
Uhh... I thought it is the standard. from TPMS FMVSS No. 138, Introduction Either way, best get whatever they said in writing. That way you can use it against em as evidence if they deny any future claim based on it.
I did, too. I mean, it IS the standard. Strange response about that, but...this is exactly what they said I'd love if people with other insurance companies could see if they get different answers.
Since every company is different, a person with any concern about that should both read their policy and call the insurance company to get an agents opinion. Then resolve the differences
I would suggest that you call your agent back, and inform them that as the NTSB now requires this technology on ALL passengers and light trucks (dualies are not considered light trucks, so are exempt from being required on those axles) I would specifically ask them to tell you whether your not replacing a required safety item on your vehicle could cause them to disclaim any potential claims. Oftentimes, you policy will read that you are required to maintain all federally required safety systems in operational condition. I would assume that the TPMS system would fall under that umbrella, as they are 'required' safety equipment on all cars now, and no longer a 'luxury' item. If the agent blows you off with a at answer, or seems to truly now know the answer to this, I would suggest that you send your insurance company a letter asking this specifically.
Since TPMS is required by law, I wouldn't rely on that lame answer ("a luxury item so we do not cover either way"). What exactly does that mean? Cover either way? That's pretty conclusive, ha?
If you want an answer that you MUST maintain the TPMS that is a great suggestion. I would suggest that if you want to find out what they might do in the real world you can ask non leading questions and get real answers. If you put in all the qualifying nonsense you suggested you are going to get a quick response, but I bet it is not going to be what the OP wanted to hear. Personally, I would read the policy carefully and make up my own mind. It is obviously a slight risk of leaving them off and not getting a warning of a low tire, but balance that off with the cost and the annoyance of false alarms and then make up your own mind. I have driven for many years and without any TPMS and have had several flat tires during those years and have never had any damage which resulted from a blown or even shredded tire. It is certainly possible, but get informed and make your choice. Someone would have to prove that there was a connection between no TPMS and the resulting damage to be able to deny coverage. That seems kind of hard to do, since most catastrophic failure of tires that I have experienced didn't result from underinflation but from a foreign object.
If you have insurance that you bought and they sold it to you they can't "deny coverage". Your covered until they cancel the policy, period. If I get roaring drunk and wreck my car I'm still covered, they might well cancel me or raise my rates through the roof, as they well should, but the wreck is covered. It would not be responsible to the people I might run into for my insurance company to say "well you were doing something we don't like so your coverage is denied". Not to mention banks and finance companies that finance cars, they wouldn't want to loan the money if insurance could be denied for an accident that had already taken place. Besides that the NHTSA requires the auto manufacturers install TPMS on new vehicles, they can't require that you use them, I think that would be up to individual states. Most vehicles don't have them because they were not equipped with them.
Good ideas above.I will follow up. Tumbleweed I appreciate that. However, I bet there are qualifications in my policy that explain ways I can invalidate it. For example if I deliberately wreck my car and tell them that to get the money, it's insurance fraud, but until they prove that and sue me for it do you really think they will, if I admit this from the get go, still be compelled to give me my money for the car?
I think what the insurance company can and can't do is largely governed by state insurance commissions and those commissions are responsible to make sure the insured, the innocent victims, and the financial organizations as well as the insurance companies are all fair to each other at least to some degree. You may well be right but I would be surprised if there is any way they can deny coverage after the fact unless, as you said, it is clearly spelled out in the policy. If you find anything be sure to post it. This is an interesting topic, thanks for bringing it up.
I thought I'd press. I think I've worded it fairly succinctly with getting the point across, so I'll see what the response is:
wouldn't any car built before they were mandated be exempt? in what situation do you think tire pressure would cause them to deny coverage? safety belts are mandated but if you live in a state where they are not, can you be denied?
TBH i didn't think it would be denied to begin with but I saw people raise this--shall we say FUD--elsewhere when this topic came up so I knew I'd have to find out either way. BTW here is the response I just got from Geico--didn't take long at all! "You are correct. Putting different wheels and tires on your car will have no impact on whether or not a claim will be covered. We do keep a record of certain safety features such as Anti-Lock Brakes and airbags for discounting purposes. Thank you for insuring with GEICO." So technically they didn't come out and say we don't give a damn about TPMS, but pretty close
I just glance through my policy and there are some reasons they can deny coverage: 1. if I damage it on purpose (this was mentioned by Skoorbmax) and probably includes suicide, but why worry then 2. nuclear contamination 3. damaged by fungi 4. damaged due to an act of war 5. if it is being driven by anyone who is working in the car business at the time, unless it is me or a member of my family 6. to carry people for hire 7. confiscated by the government There are a couple of other reasons but nothing about the condition of the car itself or its safety equipment is mentioned. They can cancel but they have to give me 30 days written notice unless they cancel for non payment of premiums then only 10 days. But that is just one company in one state.
What Tumbleweed said. Also remember that since they wrote it, any ambiguities in an insurance policy will be construed against the insurance company. Read your policy carefully. They don't change all that often and it is usually not all that easy for them to change the policies without approval of the Insurance Commissioner in your state so this TPMS thing might be too new to be covered specifically.
More bluntly, as a one-upon-a-time underwriter I cannot see any way that an insurance company could, or would try, to repudiate a claim on such grounds. To classify the fitting of new tires as a material modification to the vehicle and to maintain that the contract was voided because of it, would require a drastic rewrite of insurance policy wording. For a more interesting thread title, try filling in the blank to, "Insurance coverage while engaged in . . . . ."
