Additionally, insurance is regulated by state and each state sets it's own regulation of insurance companies. To make such a broad declaration, one would need to be versed in all states regulations. I cannot speak for Canada.
-
Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
Dismal range range and charging times. Is it just me?
Two weeks ago, I bought a 2017 Bolt Premiere from a dealership in Ohio which installed new batteries in over 60 recalled Bolts. The dealership bought these Bolts from GM at an auction, probably recalled leases from around the country, and potential buyers waited until the batteries slowly arrived. I put the deposit down last November. I had to wait awhile, but it’s finally here!
I’m getting about half the range that the car says I should have. I drive like a granny - about 65-70 HWY. My second home is about 59 miles away, but it took 125 ”bolt miles” to get there. The route is 60% highway and the rest country roads at 45-50 mph. I didn’t use A/C or heat.
In addition, the Bolt has been plugged into my 110V outlet (probably 15A) for 27 hours, but I’ve only gained 55 miles in range. The dashboard estimate for full charge was off by 24 hrs.
Any thoughts? Is this normal? I have an electrician coming in a few days to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet, but the lousy range isn’t working for me. Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a software setting that I’m missing? There are lots of fast chargers near me as I live near major interstates, but a range of 120m isn’t enough for the pricetag.
I’m getting about half the range that the car says I should have. I drive like a granny - about 65-70 HWY. My second home is about 59 miles away, but it took 125 ”bolt miles” to get there. The route is 60% highway and the rest country roads at 45-50 mph. I didn’t use A/C or heat.
In addition, the Bolt has been plugged into my 110V outlet (probably 15A) for 27 hours, but I’ve only gained 55 miles in range. The dashboard estimate for full charge was off by 24 hrs.
Any thoughts? Is this normal? I have an electrician coming in a few days to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet, but the lousy range isn’t working for me. Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a software setting that I’m missing? There are lots of fast chargers near me as I live near major interstates, but a range of 120m isn’t enough for the pricetag.
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
To clarify risk, it is not just risk of a claim being denied. It is more likely the company will pay the claim but then drop your insurance or raise your premiums - both of which still fall under the category of risk.There is no insurance risk. That's what it exists for, to cover accidents, even negligent ones.
When I was a kid, my dad had a burn barrel too close to the garage, and embers burned it down. Super negligent. Insurance paid.
Good point on unpermitted work. I hear of people being super cheap and adding NEMA 14-50 DIY and did not get permit as required by local county. If a fire were to break out, not sure if their insurance would cover them.Maybe for your insurance company. A friend of mine was denied an insurance claim because a fire started in an area of his house where he converted an attic to conditioned space without a permit. Although the cause of the fire had nothing to do with the work he did, it was still denied. Regardless of the reason the insurance company denied it, he suffered for the risk.
When I bought my current house, I was informed of an unpermitted addition and my realtor (rightly so) informed me of the small but potential insurance coverage risk.
Virtually all policies have clauses that limit the insurance companies liability including illegal activity, force majeure, etc.,. If the company determines that a given claim does not fall within the scope of their contract, they can deny the claim. Even if the claim is eventually paid, it is still a hassle to argue with the insurance company and/or receive less than what one should have.
To say that there is NO insurance risk is NOT true. You can argue semantically to what degree but the risk exists.
It is unlikely that a (reputable) insurance company will not pay a claim but the risk of them dropping you or raising your premiums is there. They also may pay for the peripheral damage but exclude covering the cost to repair/replace the unpermitted work. For example, they may pay for water damage to a leaking roof but if the roof was improperly constructed and not permitted, they may decline to cover the cost to rectify the roof itself. Permits and certifications are not in themselves proof that something was done right or is safe but from an insurance perspective, it reduces the potential of having issues with insurance.Good point on unpermitted work. I hear of people being super cheap and adding NEMA 14-50 DIY and did not get permit as required by local county. If a fire were to break out, not sure if their insurance would cover them.
That situation sounds odd, I suspect there are more factors than described.Maybe for your insurance company. A friend of mine was denied an insurance claim because a fire started in an area of his house where he converted an attic to conditioned space without a permit. Although the cause of the fire had nothing to do with the work he did, it was still denied. Regardless of the reason the insurance company denied it, he suffered for the risk.
When I bought my current house, I was informed of an unpermitted addition and my realtor (rightly so) informed me of the small but potential insurance coverage risk.
Virtually all policies have clauses that limit the insurance companies liability including illegal activity, force majeure, etc.,. If the company determines that a given claim does not fall within the scope of their contract, they can deny the claim. Even if the claim is eventually paid, it is still a hassle to argue with the insurance company and/or receive less than what one should have.
To say that there is NO insurance risk is NOT true. You can argue semantically to what degree but the risk exists.
Insurance companies may try to deny claims and succeed if not challenged. But when challenged, the burden of proof will fall on the insurer to demonstrate that the condition was at least partially to blame for the loss (proximate clause). If they are unable to convince a judge or jury that but-for the defect the loss would not have occurred, they are going to be on the hook for the loss plus additional costs for improperly denying the claim.
Lawyers will tear an insurer to pieces for denying on shaky grounds. The added risk to the insurer is bad-faith damages being tacked on to the settlement. Lawyers are crafty at putting pressure on insurers to settle claims that might be borderline to avoid the 3x or more damages that juries tend to award when they find an insurer improperly denied a claim.
Auto insurance is a good example of claims being settled when the insured is negligent. Auto accidents almost always have some degree of negligence, even a hail claim could be negligent if the owner could have parked under shelter. Theft due to not locking doors, the examples are numerous. Most mods to cars are not done with any kind of inspection or permit, and insurers would be hard pressed to deny claims due to mods.
As @DuaneS suggests, the more likely scenario is cancelling a policy, or uprating it due to the presence of non-standard risks.
Specific to my friend, he went with a substandard insurance company and the claim was eventually paid but it took him over 6 months of back and forth, a lot of hassle and they short changed him. In his case, it was suspect that the work he did (or rather his BIL) was the cause of the fire. When he had the home repaired, he made sure all permits and inspections were proper and went with a more reputable insurer, for quite a bit more.That situation sounds odd, I suspect there are more factors than described.
Insurance companies may try to deny claims and succeed if not challenged. But when challenged, the burden of proof will fall on the insurer to demonstrate that the condition was at least partially to blame for the loss (proximate clause). If they are unable to convince a judge or jury that but-for the defect the loss would not have occurred, they are going to be on the hook for the loss plus additional costs for improperly denying the claim.
Lawyers will tear an insurer to pieces for denying on shaky grounds. The added risk to the insurer is bad-faith damages being tacked on to the settlement. Lawyers are crafty at putting pressure on insurers to settle claims that might be borderline to avoid the 3x or more damages that juries tend to award when they find an insurer improperly denied a claim.
Auto insurance is a good example of claims being settled when the insured is negligent. Auto accidents almost always have some degree of negligence, even a hail claim could be negligent if the owner could have parked under shelter. Theft due to not locking doors, the examples are numerous. Most mods to cars are not done with any kind of inspection or permit, and insurers would be hard pressed to deny claims due to mods.
As @DuaneS suggests, the more likely scenario is cancelling a policy, or uprating it due to the presence of non-standard risks.
Ok, so there was more to it...Specific to my friend, he went with a substandard insurance company and the claim was eventually paid but it took him over 6 months of back and forth, a lot of hassle and they short changed him. In his case, it was suspect that the work he did (or rather his BIL) was the cause of the fire. When he had the home repaired, he made sure all permits and inspections were proper and went with a more reputable insurer, for quite a bit more.
Substandard insurers don't have reputations to uphold. The fact that they eventually paid, at least partly shows that pressing the matter helps. With a lawyer, I bet he would have gotten more from the settlement, enough to at least cover legal expenses on top of actual loss costs. Insurers usually hit the panic button when lawyers get involved.
It's more likely a fire won't develop using a thing that was designed for 240v, on a 240v circuit. I'm assuming there have been zero so far, but what, half a dozen fires from the Bolt battery? Calibrate your risk metrics accordingly.To clarify risk, it is not just risk of a claim being denied. It is more likely the company will pay the claim but then drop your insurance or raise your premiums - both of which still fall under the category of risk.
Your friend was dumb to let them get off then. I could google case law and represent a winning litigation against the insurance company.Maybe for your insurance company. A friend of mine was denied an insurance claim because a fire started in an area of his house where he converted an attic to conditioned space without a permit. Although the cause of the fire had nothing to do with the work he did, it was still denied. Regardless of the reason the insurance company denied it, he suffered for the risk.
When I bought my current house, I was informed of an unpermitted addition and my realtor (rightly so) informed me of the small but potential insurance coverage risk.
Virtually all policies have clauses that limit the insurance companies liability including illegal activity, force majeure, etc.,. If the company determines that a given claim does not fall within the scope of their contract, they can deny the claim. Even if the claim is eventually paid, it is still a hassle to argue with the insurance company and/or receive less than what one should have.
To say that there is NO insurance risk is NOT true. You can argue semantically to what degree but the risk exists.
I was rear-ended on my birthday and my car was totalled. The at fault party's insurance tried to pay substantially less than what it would cost to replace the vehicle. I declined their initial offer and submitted comps to compare with. We went back and forth for a couple months with me submitting comps, and them slightly increasing the offer. They claimed my car would have taken thousands of dollars to repair the existing cosmetic damage, and therefore was worth nothing since that cost was above the cost of the vehicle. My claim was the car was in perfect mechanical condition, and served all my needs despite the cosmetic damage. To get a mechanically perfect car of that age would be significantly more than they were offering. The fact that there aren't any vehicles with as much superficial damage but flawlessly running is irrelevant. They paid 2.5x the initial offer, and that was fair.
Unfortunately we cannot rely on the goodwill of other individuals and agencies and must hold them accountable. That takes a type of personality that is willing to be confrontational and to draw a line and stick to it. If that's not you, find someone that is that will advocate for you.
I agree the risk of using 240 (IMO) is minimal and the insurance risk is also minimal and for most people that have a need for a little more power it probably makes sense to pursue that solution. I am not arguing against doing it - my only disagreement was the phrase "no risk" - to me, it is misleading. Had the term "minimal risk" been used, fine.Your friend was dumb to let them get off then. I could google case law and represent a winning litigation against the insurance company.
I also prefer to separate physical risk from insurance risk as they are not the same. One is specific to personal responsibility and the other is regards to a contract.
I realize you included "almost", but that's still not accurate. Many auto collisions have at least one drive that simply had nothing to do with the event. My son-in-law was hit by a woman while he was stopped in traffic. He was not moving, and even though he saw her coming he had no options available due to the surrounding traffic. As it turned out, the other driver wasn't even supposed to be driving, as she was on parole for vehicular manslaughter (killed her own daughter in an accident). The insurer of the other car is still trying to lowball him for a settlement, and it's been well over 6 months. He has some permanent nerve damage, and has lost some of his ability to play guitar. That may not seem significant to some people, but he's a phenomenal guitar player, teaches a couple dozen students, and plays at our church regularly. It's a significant impact to his quality of life. They repaired his car, and have paid all medical bills to date. But they want him to settle all future claims for what I feel is a pittance for his long term loss.Auto accidents almost always have some degree of negligence,
Sorry, didn't mean to rant. but your statement is too simplistic for real world events.
I don’t think you (@atc98092 ) and him (@ARob ) are in opposition. Both of you are right in fact. Yes, accidents usually (98%) happen because of some degree of negligence shown by at least one of the drivers who are involved in the accident.
There are those accidents that happen because of rocks/furniture/hail/people falling/jumping from nowhere on or in front of the car, that’s why I said 98% in the sentence above.
There are those accidents that happen because of rocks/furniture/hail/people falling/jumping from nowhere on or in front of the car, that’s why I said 98% in the sentence above.
My career is in the Transportation industry. In the last decade or so the industry as a whole has moved away from the term "accident". When the word accident is used it implies that there a component of "no fault" and makes it more difficult to assign responsibilityI don’t think you (@atc98092 ) and him (@ARob ) are in opposition. Both of you are right in fact. Yes, accidents usually (98%) happen because of some degree of negligence shown by at least one of the drivers who are involved in the accident.
There are those accidents that happen because of rocks/furniture/hail/people falling/jumping from nowhere on or in front of the car, that’s why I said 98% in the sentence above.
Now the industry uses "crash". It's more sterile, but doesn't give the idea that it is a result of bad luck.
And I’d say you have a higher chance of burning down your house running it at 120V and 12A. A 240V outlet and circuit are more likely to be able to handle 12A than any random 120V outlet and circuit.If it’s not labeled for it you shouldn’t be using it on 240v.
As a retired electrician it would be a code violation and if it shorted and burned down your house then your insurance would have a way of not paying.
I would only use one if the manufacturer had it approved and labeled as such.
Don’t cheap out and get a level 2 that is approved for 240v.
JMHO
Relatively simple, I guess… but on my portable EVSE, I just press a button to change the amperage. I do have a few adapters that I’ve used in various situations.Simple solutions to each: just use an adapter. With the Tesla UMC, the power cord selects the amperage. So if you use a 6-30 power cord on the unit, it'll automatically set the unit to 24 amps.
Don’t think that they won’t drop you or raise your rates anyway. When my wife and I got married, we decided to put everything on one policy, and decided to add my stuff and our new house to her existing policy. They wouldn’t let us add anything else because she had made ONE claim on her homeowners insurance when a storm damaged the roof and caused a leak. It was less than $2k in damage, but they said she was now red flagged as someone who is likely to actually USE their insurance, so they don’t want more of our businessIt is unlikely that a (reputable) insurance company will not pay a claim but the risk of them dropping you or raising your premiums is there. They also may pay for the peripheral damage but exclude covering the cost to repair/replace the unpermitted work. For example, they may pay for water damage to a leaking roof but if the roof was improperly constructed and not permitted, they may decline to cover the cost to rectify the roof itself. Permits and certifications are not in themselves proof that something was done right or is safe but from an insurance perspective, it reduces the potential of having issues with insurance.
A other situation Involved a motor home that my brother and I co-owned. We made two claims in the 10 years we owned it — once when a front tire blew out on the highway and caused a few thousand in damage, and another time when a teenage girl t-boned me while she was texting. Both were not-at-fault accidents. The insurance company raised our rates from about $70/month to $200/month.
My point was intentionally simplistic, because the fact is, insurance companies routinely pay claims on behalf of negligent parties. I didn't mean to suggest all parties share some negligence, simply that almost all accidents involve negligence and claims are paid. Many, like your son's may be 100% negligence on the other person, and many are shared negligence on both parties.I realize you included "almost", but that's still not accurate. Many auto collisions have at least one drive that simply had nothing to do with the event. My son-in-law was hit by a woman while he was stopped in traffic. He was not moving, and even though he saw her coming he had no options available due to the surrounding traffic. As it turned out, the other driver wasn't even supposed to be driving, as she was on parole for vehicular manslaughter (killed her own daughter in an accident). The insurer of the other car is still trying to lowball him for a settlement, and it's been well over 6 months. He has some permanent nerve damage, and has lost some of his ability to play guitar. That may not seem significant to some people, but he's a phenomenal guitar player, teaches a couple dozen students, and plays at our church regularly. It's a significant impact to his quality of life. They repaired his car, and have paid all medical bills to date. But they want him to settle all future claims for what I feel is a pittance for his long term loss.
Sorry, didn't mean to rant. but your statement is too simplistic for real world events.
On the other hand, you can count on insurers trying to lowball settlements, that is their duty to their shareholders and policyholders, to keep costs in line. Many go too far trying to lowball claim settlements, and consumers who don't pursue things vigorously eventually settle out of frustration. But, it often doesn't need to be that frustrating with the right help.
I trust your son has a good lawyer, if not he should get one. Permanent injuries are worthy of significant settlements, and of course the insurance company will try to settle for whatever it thinks it can. A good lawyer can help in so many ways with something like this, a good lawyer knows all the angles to get deep into insurers pockets when damages are severe or permanent.
I hope things work out well for your son's case. Clearly, unfortunate circumstances to be sure.
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Chevy Bolt EV Forum
We’re the Largest Chevy Bolt EV Online Community and Owner's Club. Join to discuss sport mode, reviews, battery range and charging!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
