Who is Towing Above Tow Capacity?

Short of hauling your mangled truck and trailer off to a scale after an accident I think it may be hard to prove a full size truck is over it’s rated tow limit just by looking at the trailer unless it’s unloaded vehicle weight on the sticker is clearly over the trucks tow rating. I could see looking at a passenger car towing a large trailer and there being no question that it’s over the capacities however. There is too much gray area looking at a full size truck towing a sub 10k lb trailer though I would think, but that is pure speculation on my part.

 

What happened to Towing Champion ™ status?

 

Much better.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you. It just sounds ridiculous when you put it like that.

 

3rd gen killed it for the V8s.

@Breathing Borla
@Piki
@digitalwiz
@Kap1

 

I didn't say the towing vehicle's insurance wouldn't pay. I don't have that info. The point is that in an accident where his wife was listed as at fault by LEOs (Debatable if they are correct) the liability goes to the party that was overloaded.

It shouldn't have been there because it was a tiny SUV with a trailer that was too heavy and should never have been on the road behind that vehicle. Not "because it looked too big."

I'll ask what he is allowed/willing to share.

 

So if someone with a suspended license gets rear ended its his fault because he shouldn’t be driving?

 

Yeah insurance fraud is very different than gross negligence. Insurance fraud means you are damaging insured property on purpose with the intention of collecting money from the insurance company.

I understand. This sounds very suspect to me. I’m asking for the exact verbiage from Ranger driver’s insurance company that refused to pay the claim.

Ranger: <hits trailer>
Cops: “Ranger driver at fault.”
Ranger owner: <passes pics of trailer and tow vehicle to Ranger owner’s insurance>
Ranger owner’s insurance: “trailer you hit is too big; therefore we are not paying the claim for you hitting it.”

Is that correct? Bizarre if so!

 

I think you misread something. Ranger driver is my buddy's wife. They didn't refuse to pay. They shifted liability from him and his policy, which would have upped his premiums, to the people with the trailer because it was an overloaded rig.

 

I know your buddy owns the Ranger, and his wife hit the trailer. I’m pretty sure I understand.

1. She hit the trailer.
2. Cops said she was at fault.
3. Her insurance company sees pics of trailer and tow vehicle and says nope, trailer was too big: therefore she’s NOT at fault and attempts to shift blame to the other party, making their insurance policy cover the damages.

It sounds like right now, it’s being duked out by the insurance companies.

I would love to see the exact verbiage they gave to your buddy that they are using to justify denying the claim and shifting the blame to the other party.

 

I add just a little fuel to the fire, I have no dog in this fight I just remember this story every time the towing and litigation topic comes up. I have no idea about the insurance side of this link (I'm guessing they were on the hook to pay out to the others involved) but this guy was criminally prosecuted and part of the contributing evidence was the overload

This article is a better break down of the situation: https://carsonnow.org/story/06/09/2...ovember-south-carson-city-crash-pleads-guilty

This article is a better visual: https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2022/jul/22/reports-driver-fatal-runaway-boat-collision-senten/

 

The verbiage was a phone call he made after his premium was marked up.

He called and was not happy, they said it was marked as at fault, he asked about the fact the other vehicle wasn't within legal limits, they said "what?" He told them he had provided info and pics, the rep said let me dig, found the file with the images and said "well that changes things. This puts them at fault as that shouldn't have been on the road."

They said they'll pursue the other party, and fraud because they were claiming higher value of the trailer than what it actually was. They issued him a refund on the insurance payment and paid out the Ranger lien.

 

I wouldnt say that's over capacity if you have the 5.7 and tow package. But you should hit a scale and see what the actual numbers are.

 

That’s pretty low of him if I can be frank, whether he has a case insurance liability wise or not. To be clearly at fault, but then attempt to excuse yourself of blame by saying the person who did not cause the accident is at fault for an unrelated detail to the accident is not right in my opinion.

It’s kind of like if you ran into a car that was out of state inspection and is technically not road worthy, and claiming they’re at fault because the car was not road worthy so never should have been in your path. Sure, maybe it shouldn’t have been on the road but you’re still the one who plowed into it. It’s like countering a lack of accountability with a greater lack of accountability.

 

It sounds like Rangers insurance is going to argue that the other parties vehicle was also damaged by the overloaded trailer?

such as that driver could not properly operate the truck? Id love to know exactly how vehicles were moving at impact

 

That guy was breaking the law the second he entered a public roadway with a load in excess of 26,000 lb and no CDL. He also did not hook up his trailer brakes while towing a boat with a gross weight of 19 tons, which exceeded the F350’s GCWR by 8 tons.

This just keeps getting weirder. Even if it was just a phone call, there should be notes in his policy detailing the process of restoring his increased premiums to what they were prior to the collision, details on the claim paid, and why they are seeking restitution from the other insurance company.

They didn’t just preemptively raise his premiums before paying the claim. That increase is based on how much the “at fault” collision cost the insurance company, and how much riskier it is to insure a driver who causes collisions that cost the insurance company X dollars.

If that’s how that actually went down, that does seem very suspect to me.

• His insurance may or may not have already paid the claim
• But they definitely did already raise his premium
• After a phone call, they say “our bad!” and restore his monthly premium to its previous amount, issuing a refund for what he overpaid since they have determined his wife is now not at fault
• …PRIOR TO securing reimbursement from the other insurance company who they now say is on the hook for covering the damages caused by the collision???

 

Good posts.

Not sure how being 1500-2000 over capacity relates to being 8-10 tons over capacity compares.

 

First, my buddy wasn't in the truck at all. So keep the "dumbass" comments to yourself. Also, the police assumed fault because she said she could have had a seizure. We were on scene within 10 minutes and she was completely lucid and not exhibiting any of her post seizure symptoms. I would bet money she didn't have one because she was completly asymptomatic, but the police took the easy way out on paperwork.

There is litigation pending an officer related altercation on scene, so the camera footage from the light cams is under gag order right now. Because his wife has no memory of the impact it's possible the camper ran a light in front of her. We can’t know because we can’t see the footage until after the issue with the LEO altercation is resolved.

You're making gross assumptions and making a personal attack on someone you dont know, so kindly, get bent.

How is it low to hold someone accountable for operating equipment outside it's specs? If the didnt have the way insurance views it is from the start of anything that could prevent an accident. Fir example, if somebody is driving without a license they are at fault for ANY accident they are involved in according to insurance. They cant legally drive and did anyway, they caused it by being there when they legally weren't supposed to be.

There may well be notes. I don't know. I have reached out to ask him, but he hasn't responded yet. I'll be talking with him in the next few hours and I'll ask for permission to share anything he gives me. Again, as @ColoradoTJ said, there might be NDAs that he isn't willing to violate.

I value honesty and I certainly wouldn't intentionally stoop to lying for... what? Internet clout? I'm too old for that nonsense to matter to me. Believe me or not, as it doesnt matter. My experience with these events solidified my ingrained belief that towing/hauling over limits is a risk that I'm not willing to take.

 

Please don't tag me in these. I try to share what I've learned and witnessed, but it's called "shady" or my integrity is questioned. People will do stupid things until it bites them, and then they'll feign ignorance or rage against it because it caught up to them.

It's not worth trying to teach or share because everyone knows better than you until they have the personal experience themselves.

I'm done.

 

Good info, but it's all bull shit.

There is nothing in the write up that has anything to do with the OP's question.

He, like me is only a few percent over capacity. It's just not worth spending another $30k for something that is only going to satisfy the few nervous people here.

Find me an actual quote where someone was 1500 lbs over capacity, caused an accident and was procicuted.

I'll wait.

 

Fair enough bad example. https://www.hardworkingtrucks.com/trucks/pickups/article/15046073/towing-accident-lawsuits

How about number 6 on this list. 10,420 lbs boat and trailer with a SUV rated to 8,000lbs. Thats pretty close to OP condition if 7200 lbs is accurate. And this does not trip any CDL requirements either, didn't see that from the other story.

Also I'm playing devil's advocate just because. This is like 10 mins of google searching and I really don't care what you do when you are towing.

 

By this logic you can run over illegal immigrants standing in the road without repercussions, as it is most definitely illegal for them to be there and they never should have. Something tells me if you did so, you would be on trial. You’re looking at it through a skewed lens of being on the side of your buddy. From the outside looking in it is clear.

 

Not speaking about criminal charges. Insurance liability. You are drawing absurd and ridiculous false equivalencies.

 

Sometimes magnifying an issue x100 with hyperbole is the best litmus test for determining if it is BS.

 

Except it's not relatable to one another.

A proper hyperbolic comparison would be this: it is illegal to shoot someone. It's murder. But if you shoot them when they do wrong first, break into your home and head toward your family's room and you shoot them, it's no longer illegal. If the didnt break in you wouldn't have shot them, thus they are to blame.

Context is important, but even that hyperbole is a bad use because criminal charges and insurance liability are in different realms.

 

It appears I’ve let you shift the argument away from the point I was making. If you go back to my post I specifically said insurance liability determination aside it was the low thing to do, specifically from a morality standpoint. This conversation took a turn from that point, but the issue is with the morality of your friend’s choice to deflect accountability for the incident despite being responsible for all of it. The insurance company doesn’t determine the fate of one’s soul when they die, so I don’t much care for their determination of blame on the matter.

 

Wow, what a patch of weeds to go through…I love this forum!

so am I understanding that towing over capacity would be covered by insurance, but could possibly shift blame/responsibility to the overloaded party?

 

Personally, I’ll never lose the love of shitshow threads like this. I just want to thank you all for doing your part to make it every bit the disaster I thought it could be.

 

There are details I've left out that would clarify this. I didn't because it wasn't pertinent to the original point that being overweight can cause headaches.

His insurance was paying, and he was fine with it. He was going to take the hit as he fully expected to. Then the people with the trailer tried to claim it was a 32' trailer to boost the pay out (it was more like a 25').

His lawyer told him/his insurance to request a VIN for the trailer, tow vehicle, and for the insurance to review photos of the scene. That led his insurance to dig, find the trailer was not only too large for the SUV, but that they were attempting to fraudulently inflate the value. To date they've been unable to produce a VIN for a 32' trailer so the claim is still pending rather than being g paid. That's why his rate was put back and he was refunded.

 

As someone who works in the industry it is a factor