yah, those are decent tires, i have them on one of my wheelsets, but be warned they have round sidewalls.
there is a luv/hate relationship with that look.. :ugh: i personally hate the look.

Heh, no worries - I am more worried about road noise and ride quality than if my sidewall is a little round :P

:tup: u'll definitely like them then. they are pretty sticky too, and light weight.

I had the DWS on my 335i, but figured Austin is fine for summer tires :tup: so I went with the DW

yep, actually i run DWS on my dd.

Uninsured Motorist coverage is only applicable if the other party is at fault and without insurance or under-insured.

Be sure to have as much info as possible to support your case. They will try to pin it on you to recover the cost of the repair.

Good luck...

It's understandable that an uninsured motorist claim is not being applied in your situation. I believe Texas does not have no-fault insurance laws, so I don't understand what it means when the insurance company will file as a no-fault claim. I suspect in the end, your rates will go up.

....

I'm not buying your argument. :rolleyes: The non-replaced tires would be labeled unsafe if they already had unsafe tire tread. That's the owner's responsibility, not the insurance company.

You keep mentioning a "$hitty insurance company," but this rarely has anything to do with the insurance company but who is your agent and/or adjuster. You can have a similar situation, with different a agent and/or adjuster, and have different results. You can have a 5-star rating from one person and have a 1-star rating from a different person for the same insurance company. I know there are better rated companies, but even they have disappointed customers.

In the end, we'll see if he'll get all four tires. I hope he does, but I'm willing to side that he won't.

I'm getting all four but not all paid by insurance for obvious reasons. At this point I will just have to go with whatever happens with the insurance rates...ordering an in-dash cam but I wonder if that would have done anything if the other driver never made contact with my vehicle?

No. You do not understand. If the tires are 5/32" tread when the accident occurs, they are not unsafe (unsafe being <3/32" tread). When new tires being somewhere in the neighborhood of 10/32" tread are paired with tires on the opposite side that have 5/32" tread, an unsafe condition is created due to the difference in tread. Seeing as how the new tires creating the unsafe condition are a direct result of the accident, the insurance company should not be putting a consumer in this predicament (why is this on the consumer? they had four perfectly safe tires prior to the accident). A good insurance company understands this and covers all four tires. I have seen it happen :tiphat:

When I refer to $hitty insurance companies, I'm really referring to the ones like Fred Loya and The General and all those that fight tooth and nail against every single claim regardless of how obvious it is that their client is at fault. Its these jacka$$es that cause the rates of other insurers to rise because they have to commit resources to getting their money. I won't call an insurance company honest, but the reasonable ones actually pay when they should pay.

Decent insurance companies (the big ones like All State, Nationwide, State Farm) still have $hitty adjusters and agents like you say. But you can always request another adjuster. My buddy's uncle had five different adjusters come look at damage on his vintage Mercedes before he finally got what he wanted - an older adjuster that enjoyed classic cars and was sympathetic to his situation. We use the same agent and both think he's a joke.

I think you could use it as evidence if it was clear in the video that they caused you to make a maneuver that caused damage to your vehicle. But I'm no lawyer ...

At the very least you hope to get their license plate info.

It probably varies somewhat from state to state. For most comprehensive policies, other than like a windshield, I think you always get socked with the deductible unless you pay a higher premium.

Darkphantom, unless a cop was on the scene to issue a reckless driving ticket or something to the other driver, even if you got a tag number it's your word against his. Traffic cams might be admissible... Also, court fees and lost time are as likely as not to make the deductible savings negligible. It's worth looking into, but probably not worth pursuing to conclusion.

As to avoiding an accident with another driver -- it sucks, but you did the right thing. Every other car involved means more risk to other lives -- including your own and anyone else on the road around you.

Why bring a gun to a car fight? :rofl2:

I understand that because there was no contact with the other vehicle, it was not possible to run it under uninsured motorist. But it was still filed as a no-fault claim with a lower deductible. I'm not sure if the states have specific rules regarding uninsured motorist coverage or whether the insurance companies write whatever different policies they feel like offering. I know to add uninsured motorist coverage to my policy, it costs me an extra $5 per month and there's no deductible associated with it.

You're probably right on the dash cam thing. Court costs and such just won't make it worth the time. In addition to the chances of it not being admitted as evidence.

I once encountered a lady with no license or insurance and did not speak English. She plowed into me at 35 mph as I was turning into a parking lot. A cop witnessed the whole thing, and she still insisted that I cut her off suddenly and slammed on my brakes even though I had been in front of her for well over a mile at this point. While my uninsured motorist coverage would have covered it regardless (since she rear ended me without insurance), a dash cam would have set the record straight on whether I cut her off or not - assuming front and rear cameras, of course.

Uninsured coverage is very simple. There MUST be a driver who has no insurance or his/her coverage is less than the liability (primarily for bodily injuries and may also include properties) of the accident. Furthermore, it must be proven that he/she is at fault. There is normally a deductible for UMI, but some insurance companies offer an option to waive the deductible for a few bucks.

As far as filing no-fault claim, the only thing that counts is the result of the investigation. If the driver is proven to be at least 50% at fault, the premium is going up.

Unfortunately for the OP, the other driver is gone and there is no witness or contact from the other car. I am sure that he is at least 50% at fault which translates to higher premium.

I double-checked, and the $5 per month I pay for is the extra charge for no deductible. I now remember that decision - I decided it was worth it in Texas.

I'm not sure I understand why you would attribute fault in a no-fault claim? :icon14:

Because it is irrelevant. You can file 'xyz' type of claims. The only thing that matters is the result of the investigation.

Filing a no-fault claim has no effect on the outcome of the investigation. The claimant has to pay full deductible plus premiums if found at fault.

So, did you personally measure the tire thread to support your point. :confused:

Looks the insurance company is not paying. You may find it wrong, but I agree they shouldn't. Stop drinking the kool aid in Austin. :p

I might have since we're in the same town. Or I could have just read his earlier post where he actually stated what the treads were. But I was just posting an example anyway. So it really doesn't matter. I'm just arguing the principle.

Are you an insurance agent or adjuster or something? I've actually seen insurance pay out for four tires in a claim exactly like this. In Austin. If you were my adjuster I would have been requesting another :tiphat:

If that's the case, then he was NOT found at fault. Because he did not have to pay his full deductible.

I was just trying to explain to you that it doesn't matter the types of claim being filed in general.

I don't have any idea what happened to OP's case as it is still open per his latest posts. Perhaps you have more current info.

All I have is the information he has already posted. It's being filed as a no-fault claim, and he is paying a $250 deductible instead of his regular $1000 deductible. I'm sure his claim is still open since the repairs aren't yet complete, but I doubt the investigation is still open.

You obviously know about the deductible he is paying more than I do. I hope you're correct for OP's sake.

However, I would be very surprise that the investigation is completed so soon in light of the situation and the actual deductible/liability can only be determined when it is done.

He posted that information. Although I can't seem to find the post now :ugh2:

His car is supposed to be ready tomorrow. If the car is at the shop getting fixed, then the investigation is over. Insurance won't approve the repairs without the investigation being complete. Also, he already said the insurance company told him what the deductible would be, which according to you is evidence that the investigation is done.

That's enough derailing of this thread for me. Feel free to PM me if you insist on continuing this conversation :tiphat:

To put things straight, I paid a $477 deductible which is the full deductible, plus ~$300 for the additional amount for the new tires.

Initially the agent had told me it would be covered under the uninsured policy but because there was no evidence of the interaction, no scrapes - they said by Texas law, they will have to file it as normal collision through my insurance, however, it was mentioned that it was being filed as a "no fault" incident...whatever that means.

Either way, I got the car back and am happy!

/closed

Happy day is here again.

Time to enjoy it. :driving:

No fault means ur insurance won't go up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk