*...snip...*
I know that law sounds dumb and unnecessary , but it actually is a good idea for the safety of anyone in any car you might hit in a crash. I have seen the damage when a lifted trucks bumper hits a car at the roof line. *...snip...*
I agree with the above, and commend the OP for declining to lift further. Meaning, this is not an attack on the OP, nor anyone else. Rather, I'm just a citizen, trying to be helpful to fellow forum members, as I've practiced law in the area of automotive liability--admittedly, many years ago.
I also worked as a third party, liability insurance investigator/claims adjuster, for a major insurance carrier, doing a lot of automotive insurance DEFENSE claims.
DISCLAIMER #1: None of this post is meant to be taken as legal advice. Rather, it's just one citizen's opinion, offered in the spirit of trying to help fellow forum members.
DISCLAIMER #2: This post is LONG. If that's not your cup of tea, please skip it and I'd appreciate it if you did so without venting about it being too long. The topic raised by
Joes1500 is important, but not one easily dealt with, in brief. (I'm having vision problems, but I wrote it anyway, so I'm well-aware of how long it is.)
I want to raise an issue no one has mentioned, but
Joes1500 states the reasoning behind, in the part I bolded in
red, above.
Your own insurance liability carrier can choose to disclaim coverage, i.e., they can decide NOT to (legally) defend and indemnify you (i.e., pay any injured parties, under your third party liability coverage) IF they find a reason to.
For example, IF they decided, post accident, that your vehicle was modified by you (or anyone you hired) so as to be,
in their opinion, in violation of the terms of their policy's EXCLUSIONS, the carrier
could deny you coverage--for the whole shebang--i.e., damage to your truck, the other vehicle and the injured party(ies) in the other vehicle. (Your medical coverage may still cover you and yours--I'm fairly confident that varies by state.)
I say this as a former insurance DEFENSE attorney, who worked to DEFEND the insured (i.e., folks like you and I) against third party liability claims, i.e., any claims some else might bring against you, were you at fault in an accident. IOW, I was not what many laypeople associate
all attorneys with, i.e., "ambulance chasers." More bluntly, I did not sue anyone--rather, I DEFENDED against lawsuits brought against the carriers' insureds (i.e., people like us). I was paid a straight salary for this work, as opposed to a PLAINTIFF'S attorney, who typically will charge approx. 1/3 of any settlement/judgement obtained, by suing someone on behalf of an insured--who, again, could be either you or I--but hopefully not.
Have I ever seen a denial of coverage based on excessive vehicle height? No.
Do I think it's possible? Yes.
And please understand that if the carrier "walks way" (i.e., denies you coverage) you would be personally liable to all injured parties, and they could then sue you and, worst case, garnish your salary, or even force the sale of your assets (read: house, cars, etc...) to satisfy a judgment against you.
Is it likely, for excessive lift on a truck? I don't know--
but I've been out of the business for many years, and for all I know, there is already case law on this, supporting denials of coverage for excessive height. All I
do know is, I would not want to be the "test case" for such a denial, even if it's never been done before. Because then you will be paying an attorney to SUE YOUR OWN CARRIER, for coverage.
Would I risk it? Never--and certainly, not for something as silly (sorry, JMO) as pushing the state's limits on bumper height, for the sake of truck aesthetics--or for any reason one wanted excessive vehicle height, for that matter.
Joes1500 makes the BEST argument against not trying to exceed the state bumper height--
because excessive vehicle height will cause vastly-worse, and unnecessary/AVOIDABLE injuries to those in passenger cars, regardless of whether the accident is your fault or not.
DECAPITATION (i.e., having one's head chopped off) is one of the injuries that concerns authorities, when writing "underride protection" laws (i.e., "bumper height" limits).
I didn't read much of the article linked below, and it's only dumb luck it happens to apply to PA--it was the first article I found. I posted it to let those who may not be aware that
UNDERRIDE ACCIDENTS are a "thing," and the U.S. is way behind other countries efforts to protect cars from unnecessary injury when the ram into the back of a tractor trailer.
The article is about tractor-trailers, but the principles are the same, re: extra-high pickup bumpers and their effect on cars.
My 2nd-Hand "Under-ride Accident" Experience:
I do have a personal story to relate, however. I borrowed a Honda Del Sol from a buddy, to do him a favor re: his boat. The car belonged to his g.f., who had recently rear-ended a small, Toyota pickup. I don't know the model/year, or whether or not it was lifted.
I DO know that the damage came RIGHT UP TO THE WINDSHIELD, and yet the Honda was still driveable. Meaning:
she was less than 2 feet away from getting a BUMPER in the FACE, in a classic "under-ride accident" (when you consider that her head would be leaning forward, at impact). It was a pretty chilling example, to see so little damage on the car, other than the scrapes on the hood (and bumper damage) stopping just at the windshield. (I assume her front bumper hit the truck's rear axle, thus saving her from serious injury--she was uninjured--but that's just speculation on my part.)
And before we assume that the Toyota pickup she hit was lifted sky-high, this was in the late '90's, i.e., before the fullsize Tundra came out, and she did say it was
not a big Toyota pickup. Personally, I see it happening like this:
Pickup truck makes an emergency stop, thus raising the rear bumper.
G.F. makes an emergency stop, thus causing her Honda's nose to dive, as she rams Toyota pickup.
Insert "Nose B" under "Bumper A" = Near Disaster.
IOW, although we don't know if the pickup was lifted at all or not, I can imagine this accident happening even
without the truck being lifted.
Meaning: the damage can only get worse, the higher the truck. (And, obviously, it could be your loved ones, in
their car, going under a severely-lifted truck.)
At the bottom of this post is the article, if interested. Bottom line is,
those state bumper heights exist to PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND YOURS (surely some of whom drive cars) so I would hope the MORAL argument is sufficient to dissuade anyone (
not just the OP, who has already said he's not going to lift any higher) to lift beyond state-mandated limits. But if not, please remember your carrier
could disclaim coverage for the "intentional act" of performing unsafe modifications if, in their opinion, your vehicle failed to meet the "terms and conditions" of their policy OR fell within the policy's "coverage exclusions."
IF the carrier were to attempt this, you would get a "Reservation of Rights" letter (which I've written a number of) where the carrier would advise you to:
a) Get your own counsel (and pay them, yourself, of course) and;
b) Prepare for the possibility that the carrier may deny coverage for failure to comply with insurance policy requirements (which, somewhere, in fine print, would require you to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition, consistent with state and federal DOT laws, etc..., blah blah blah)
And just for general info--More Insurance is Better:
Regardless of this lift conversation, IF any accident is bad enough that the carrier feels damages could exceed the policy limits, they may decide to just "pay the policy," (meaning, if you carry $300,000., but the church bus full of victims' injuries clearly exceeds that) the carrier can just pay the entire $300,000. and legally WALK AWAY, taking their lawyers with them, leaving YOU to hire your own lawyer, forensic/crash experts, medical experts, etc..., and defend yourself.
And, of course, attempt to pay any judgements against you out of the sale of your own personal assets (house, cars, etc....)
Happily, liability (i.e., 3rd Party) coverage is THE cheapest form of insurance. Adding a few, extra $100K in coverage is
very cheap. Ask your agent/carrier.
I don't, nor have I ever, sold insurance. Though, sometimes, I think I should have....
My Opinion/"Mini-rant" on Lifts and Injuries to Others:
And (for anyone still reading): IF one can keep their vehicle right side up, the higher you are, the safer you are, as it's better to be ON TOP OF another vehicle, rather than hit by it. That's one reason the wife has an SUV, and we have a truck.
That said, ANY lift, even within the state's maximum allowable, IS putting other drivers at risk of more serious injuries than if your truck was at stock height (which all of mine are).
So IF one cars about Karma, one might wish to ask themselves whether the risk to others is worth the reasons they have for lifting their truck AT ALL. (/"mini-rant" over)
Glad the OP decided against more lift--all the best,
Aries Rising
Canadian and European Truck Underride Standards Have Outpaced U.S. Standards
https://www.reiffandbily.com/canadi...erride-standards-have-outpaced-u-s-standards/