Sorry Ron, My fault for not explaining myself good enough. What I'm trying to explain is the insurance company will find the "fault of the accident" due to non approved equipment . At that point the claim can be denied to the party who was found at fault.
I have personally seen this happen more than once. Not for a tire but for other things. An example would be a lifted truck or Jeep that rolls. I have yet to see insurance company pay out a repair or replacement for a lifted vehicle that rolls over in a collision. I rolled a Baja Bug when I was young man. My claim was completely denied because of the suspension lift. I had full coverage insurance. It was a total loss out of my pocket. It's very important to read your policy before making modifications to any vehicle.
I have seen DUI cases that end up bankrupting the driver who was under the influence. I have never seen an insurance company getting a drunk drivers car replaced or repaired. This in CA. We have very strict laws when it comes to driving under the influence.
You're conflating two different things here, Chris....when you're talking about "fault", you're still talking about liability. As far as fault in the accident goes, the insurance company can't deny a
liability claim based on a mechanical defect. If you'd injured someone in your rollover crash, then your insurer would still be responsible for that person's injuries. They could
not deny any claim for injuries by the injured party simply because you had a lift kit on your truck. They would have to pay up to whatever the limits of the coverage were, and then the injured party could sue you for anything above and beyond that. You can't conflate a liability claim with a claim under the collision/comprehensive portion of an insurance policy. Insurance companies have a lot of leeway with insuring the
value of a vehicle, and the conditions under which they'll insure the value of the vehicle. That's why some companies will insure a bike plus accessories, and others won't cover anything you add yourself. Collision coverage and liability coverage are two entirely different animals, and I don't dispute that an insurance company may refuse in part or in total a claim for damages to
your own vehicle. They may not have paid for the damages to your Baja Bug for the same reason they probably wouldn't pay a damage claim to my car if I took it to the drag strip on a Saturday and crashed it in the quarter mile. But those sorts of claims have nothing to do with a liability claim.
I'm not surprised that someone was bankrupted by DUI. When a drunk driver injures someone, the driver normally gets sued for whatever damages are incurred above the limits of the drunk driver's liability insurance. If you carry the minimum $30K/$60K liability insurance, an injured person can blast through that really fast, and after that, they sue you personally for you house, assets, etc.
Every place in the US has strict drunk driving laws. Those particular criminal laws have nothing to do with the civil laws that govern liability insurance. Why do you think that every state has an insurance risk pool for drivers with prior DUI offenses? Because you HAVE to have insurance to drive, and even when an insurance company won't write you a policy, the State has to. Now, they can charge you am arm and a leg for the coverage, because you're a high risk, but if you go out and run someone down for the second time, your liability insurance HAS to pay the claim, regardless if you were drunk.
If you're claiming that an insurance company won't pay a collision related damage claim on a darkside motorcycle simply because it had a car tire on it, my response is....I have no idea. It's entirely possible; it would depend on how your individual collision policy was written. If you're saying that they would deny
any claim because of the tire, then I say you're wrong.