Reducing speed ratings?

[MB-BTurbo]

Your logic is impeccable BUT unfortunately this is not how things work - your arguments above will be valid in the event of criminal precedings where the personal culpability threshold is high, but not when it comes to civil insurance matters - see my previous post.

It was not meant as a defence argument, more to highlight that there will be no need for a defence in the first place. All this splitting hairs, perception and differing opinions are beginning to expose another loophole...one designed to protect people who have no idea that tyres evencome in different sizes let alone be expected to have any awareness of potential insurance implications, but that's a different topic altogether.

 

[markjay]

On what is this statement based?

I am basing what I have said on a discussion with someone who worked in the insurance claims industry.
This would lead me to believe that you are correct in all of what you say AS LONG AS the unassessed risk relates to the claim. If it doesn't then you have paid the correct part of that premium that relates to the cause of the claim.

I am afraid your friend is mistaken. See below:

issue 46 - non-disclosure in insurance cases

'A "material" fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to "avoid" the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.' (the bold text was highlighted by me)

This is the strict legal position. Is 'reduced speed rating' a material fact? One would argue that the answer is yes.

Said that... in reality this is a 'loophole' that insurers often use to try and wriggle their way out of paying on a claim, and the court (and the ombudsman) might rule in your favour in spite of the insurer being technically correct in refusing to honour any claim under this policy.

My point is that (a) you have a 50-50 chance of getting away with it, and (b) there's a good chance that you will have to commit both time and money to fight your corner.

My advise? Best avoided. Always declare...

 

[markjay]

There are some case studies here:

issue 25 - insurance case studies - non-disclosure

You will see that while the insurer's position was not always accepted, insurers do try and nullify polices due to non-disclosure.

In one of these cases for example, the insurer refused to pay-out for a stolen car because the insured did not declare previous traffic offences. The insurer's position was that the non-disclosure meant the policy was void, even if the previous convictions had nothing to do with the theft of the vehicle.

In this case the ombudsman suggested a compromise - the insurer agreed to pay 85% of the claim. But my point is - they WILL try and avoid paying on the policy even if the claim itself has nothing to do with the non-disclosure.

Your logic that they should not reject a claim that has nothing to do with the tyres speed rating is sound, but unfortunately this is NOT how things actually work....

 

[MB-BTurbo]

^ that's a good find, thank you. I think what I was told can be related to the above though. Had the claim been related to the non disclosure she may well have had her appeal rejected entirely. Nevertheless that is still a sobering read, 85% maybe a lucky break or it may well ruin you if you happen to crash into a Bugatti Veyron.

 

[190]

This tyre speed rating has got out of hand. Even my base model W204 C180K which is the slowest petrol model has a theoretical top speed of 143 MPH. V rated tyres are fitted but in any practical sense unnecessary. You don't buy the base model to go fast. The academic top speed is down to exceptional aerodynamics as you need very little power to exceed 130Mph if the car has low drag.

If MB govern their performance cars to 155PH they should govern their cooking models to 130MPH and then the problem of tyre speed rating wouldn't arise.

 

[MB-BTurbo]

Post 22 highlights how I might have misunderstood the context of a material (relevant) fact. To me I saw that a material (relevant) fact as a fact that was relevant to the claim rather than the policy itself. Again thanks for the link, very helpful.

As for a 'reduced speed rating' being considered a material fact I believe that it would be if the rating was lower than the top speed of the car. If the reduced speed rating is lower but still above the cars top speed there is no way that this could be considered a 'relevant' fact.

 

[E55BOF]

Post 22 highlights how I might have misunderstood the context of a material (relevant) fact. To me I saw that a material (relevant) fact as a fact that was relevant to the claim rather than the policy itself. Again thanks for the link, very helpful.

As for a 'reduced speed rating' being considered a material fact I believe that it would be if the rating was lower than the top speed of the car. If the reduced speed rating is lower but still above the cars top speed there is no way that this could be considered a 'relevant' fact.

That's not the point. What you believe is also not 'relevant' in the short term. In the REAL world, most insurers WILL try to wriggle out of paying if they have any grounds. They may ultimately lose 'on appeal', but in the meantime THEY WILL NOT PAY OUT.

Just fit tyres with the correct speed rating, or tell your insurers what you're doing....

 

[Smart320]

Seems to me from this thread you have already decided to fit tyres with a lower speed rating and not to inform your insurance company . Suggest you just go ahead and then spend tomorrow more productively

 

[MB-BTurbo]

That's not the point. What you believe is also not 'relevant' in the short term. In the REAL world, most insurers WILL try to wriggle out of paying if they have any grounds. They may ultimately lose 'on appeal', but in the meantime THEY WILL NOT PAY OUT.

Just fit tyres with the correct speed rating, or tell your insurers what you're doing....

Can you find any cases on any forums where someone has complained that an insurer has not paid due to a lower speed ratings? I'm struggling to find any.

 

[markjay]

Load rating:

Watchdog: Driver foots the bill after tyres mix-up | Auto Express

'A Goodyear spokeswoman told us: “These tyres shouldn’t have been fitted to this car, full stop. Having a lower load index to what the manufacturer recommends can invalidate your insurance.” '

 

[markjay]

More advise here:

Is my car insured? | Parkers

'Fitting tyres that have a lower speed rating can also void a policy as they may not be suitable for use on that vehicle.'

 

[markjay]

More advise:

Tyre Speed Rating - Ratings Explained | Blackcircles.com

'It is very important that you check your speed rating before buying tyres. Choosing a tyre with a lower rating than is appropriate for your car can invalidate your insurance.'

 

[markjay]

Also here:

https://www.tyre-shopper.co.uk/news...tyres-and-car-insurance-what-you-did-not-know

'If you fit tyres with lower speed rating than the original fitment, the new tyres will not support your regular speed. This can result in unfortunate occurrences. And the insurance company can refuse to entertain your claim, citing that the car was not road worthy and had been ‘modified’. In fact in some countries, it is illegal to drive on tyres with lower speed rating than the original fitments.'

 

[MB-BTurbo]

More advise here:

Is my car insured? | Parkers

'Fitting tyres that have a lower speed rating can also void a policy as they may not be suitable for use on that vehicle.'

To me that offers further confirmation that you do not need to worry about voiding your insurance unless you fit tyres unsuitable for the vehicle, i.e. lower than the cars official top speed.

...same for post 32.

...I don't understand what post 33 means where it says, 'lower speed ratings will not support your regular speed'.

 

[markjay]

While I couldn't find a specific case where a motor insurance policy was void due to having tyres with lower speed rating than the original fitments... there's enough volume of advise out there against doing so.

I think it is clear that - even if eventually the policy is not void - doing so opens the door to a world of pain. Potentially.

 

[markjay]

To me that offers further confirmation that you do not need to worry about voiding your insurance unless you fit tyres unsuitable for the vehicle, i.e. lower than the cars official top speed.

Errrr... difficult one. All the examples I found were from various private companies e.g. tyre shops and Parkers etc.... and they obviously do not make the law and do not dictate to insurers what to do... so I would look at the advise they provide, BUT I would not assume that the information on their websites provides a grantee of any sort.

That's the legal position:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/25/schedule/3/made

'7. The speed capability of all tyres fitted shall be not less than the maximum design speed of the vehicle.'

So if you are happy that the top speed of your vehicle is below 130mph, than you car is apparently road legal. But this does not mean that insurers wont try to get you for non-disclosure... I do not know. As said, too much grey area and instead of second-guessing what the insurer will do, I would avoid it... my view.

 

[MB-BTurbo]

I can only find paranoid motorist in fear that reducing a tyres speed rating will automatically lead to invalidation. Interestingly not a single expert has contributed to these threads (and I have found a lot of them). I could speculate further as to why that is but I am satisfied with my position on the matter.

Thank you markjay for the considerable time you have spent inputting in this thread.

 

[markjay]

I can only find paranoid motorist in fear that reducing a tyres speed rating will automatically lead to invalidation. Interestingly not a single expert has contributed to these threads (and I have found a lot of them). I could speculate further as to why that is but I am satisfied with my position on the matter.

Thank you markjay for the considerable time you have spent inputting in this thread.

I was quite interested to know myself

Found this discussion:

What are the consequences of fitting lower speed-rated tyres? - MBClub UK - Bringing together Mercedes Enthusiasts

Have a look at #13: this would encourage me to contact the insurer and declare. Your call.....

 

[ray_hennig]

There must be some ruling on this with regard to winter tyres that are not rated W, Y, Z or other high speed ratings (V?).

I say this because, last time I was in Germany, on a snowy Autobahn, many seriously fast cars past me (on my summer tyres!!!) and they had anonymous wheels shod, doubtless, with winter tyres. So, super fast Audis, BMWs, MBs & Porsches do run on low speed tyres despite being able to travel at speeds way beyond the maximum of those tyres. Are all these cars uninsured? I don't think so.

Also, this issue is beginning to affect my choice of tyres. For whatever reason, my 300CE-24 was and is fitted with W rated tyres. MB fitted them before I bought it second hand from them. Both my son and I here in France have been told that the cars (his is a VW Gti) must be fitted with W rated tyres as original. Again, this cannot apply to winter tyres if my understanding is correct.

The problem now is that W rated 205/60 15 tyres are few and far between, with only Continental PremiumContact 2 and Uniroyal RainExpert being available from my usual vendor.

Maybe someone could consult the AA or RAC for a definitive statement? I can't do this as I am not a member of either.

Sorry to ramble.

RayH

 

[MB-BTurbo]

You would need to determine whether the lower tyre rating would be considered a material fact. If the rating is still above the official limit of the car I do not and cannot see how it possibly can be, loop holes don't enter the equation.

As for ratings that are lower than the top speed, I could see this being a 'loop hole' for insurers to exploit, albeit not a very good one. It is worth noting that I cannot find a single report where an insurer has even hinted at a refusal to pay due to lower speed ratings. I am also intrigued how, in amongst the many threads on various forums on this matter, not a single expert has contributed (and there are many). This, rightly or wrongly, leads me to think that they do not have grounds to refuse a payout but are unwilling to speak out as they would be concerned about the potential to misrepresent other companies.