Rfing Limits as in manual ..

[Pepse]

in the case of a liability suit

what would happen with the rfing limits of 1" of hard shell vs the 32inches stated in teh manuels??

[Kat_Momof3]

that's a good question... bumping for techs.

[An Aurora]

in the case of a liability suit

what would happen with the rfing limits of 1" of hard shell vs the 32inches stated in teh manuels??

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

[CTPDMom]

I think what they're asking is:

If a child is over the stated height limit of 32".

But still in the seat as it's not 'outgrown' by the '1" or more above the head' rule that we generally hold as a standard.

Does that nullify the manufacturer's liability because 'we' are using the seat over and above their set limits?

(IS that what you're asking?)

[MissAllyLou]

If that's what you're asking, I would say no, because most manufacturer's state that height is a guideline, the seat isn't truly outgrown rear-facing until there is less than an inch of shell above the head. So, I would say no.

[TechnoGranola]

The 32" RF height limit is on seats in the U.S. too? Wow, I never knew! I thought it was only us Canadians who got stuck with that garbage in the manual. Especially the garbage in the new Britax manual where they the 32" limit listed in their "death or injury can occur if you don't follow this" section, and then again in the RF section they have a huge, red outlined box with red "warning" saying NEVER to use it RF if the child is more than 32".

[BW1426]

Has anyone had the insurance company look into the weight and size of their child? I guess I just don't see that happening.

[crunchierthanthou]

If that's what you're asking, I would say no, because most manufacturer's state that height is a guideline, the seat isn't truly outgrown rear-facing until there is less than an inch of shell above the head. So, I would say no.

I'm not sure that's the case. Most that I'm aware of that state a rf height limit will say that it is a hard limit and it's that or 1" of shell above the child's head- whichever comes first.

It's generally only techs who say height limits are more of a guideline because children grow in such different proportions and rates. weight limits, on the other hand, are absolute.

technogranola- I believe the OP is canadian. Most of the US convertibles that state them have rf height limits higher than 32". In fact, our Britax convertible manuals have an overall height limit but don't state a separate rf height limit, just the 1" rule.

[TechnoGranola]

technogranola- I believe the OP is canadian. Most of the US convertibles have rf height limits higher than 32". In fact, our RA manual has an overall height limit of 40" but doesn't even state a rf height limit, just the 1" rule.Well that clears that up then! It wasn't in the Canadian forum, so I assumed a U.S. poster. :) (which makes me think, wouldn't the liability question be better in the Canadian forum as insurance/laws/liability are much different in Canada than the U.S.? Heck, they're different between Canadian provinces)

[crunchierthanthou]

(which makes me think, wouldn't the liability question be better in the Canadian forum as insurance/laws/liability are much different in Canada than the U.S.? Heck, they're different between Canadian provinces)

probably. Although there are several posters who I only know are Canadian because I've tried to answer questions based on US info only to be told later that they are Canadian. That's my proposal for a new rule. If you're Canadian, your location should say that. We don't need to know your town or even province, but narrowing down the country would be helpful. ;)

[Kat_Momof3]

I figured it was in regard to the Graco SS1, which has a limit of 32" tall or less than 1" above the head.

Graco isn't specific about if it's whatever comes first, though.

[hipmaman]

I got into a heated discussion with a mom over this issue (in Canada). She was in a collision where insurance claim had to be filed. The insurance company gave her a hard time and questioned her in great details including if the child was rf at the time and what the weight and height of the child was, etc.

Her thought was that had she stick to the 1" rule and not the posted 32" posted height limit, then her claim might have been denied since it was considered usage against manufacture instructions. She was very clear that a letter from TC indicating the 1" rule would not have helped :(

[bubbaray]

in the case of a liability suit

what would happen with the rfing limits of 1" of hard shell vs the 32inches stated in teh manuels??


I can answer this for Canadian law, well, for BC insurance law.

Technically, if you are transporting a child that is required by law to be in a child restraint, you have to ensure that the restraint is legal in Canada (ie., a Canadian certified seat) and that you are using it in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions (height, weight limits, ages if applicable, such as the Frontier).

If you are not using a seat when required to do so, or if you are using a non-Canadian seat, or if you are using a Canadian seat incorrectly, technically you are in breach of your insurance policy and your insurer can refuse to provide coverage. If an improperly restrained child is injured in a crash in which you are the responsible driver (and user of the improper/illegal restraint), you can be sued by the child (even if its your own) -- in which case, you don't have insurance coverage for any damages awarded to the child.

Everyone should be using a child restraint when required by law to do so. Everyone should be using only seats that are legal in their jurisdiction. Everyone should be following manufacturer's instructions.

Whether or not a particular insurer, or insurance adjuster, or insurance defence counsel, is even "live" to this issue is another thing altogether.

[skiersnowboarder3]

The next question then would be what about FFing height limits? If your child is over 52" but still fits in the regent, will insurance cover expenses if in a crash?

[bubbaray]

The next question then would be what about FFing height limits? If your child is over 52" but still fits in the regent, will insurance cover expenses if in a crash?

If you are Canadian, driving a Canadian insured vehicle in Canada, No. Because the Regent is not legal in Canada, regardless of the height or weight of the child.

If you were using, say, a Canadian MA, then if the child was over 47" (the FFg max height), you are again in breach of your ins. policy....

[skiersnowboarder3]

If you are Canadian, driving a Canadian insured vehicle in Canada, No. Because the Regent is not legal in Canada, regardless of the height or weight of the child.

Well you knew what I meant. :duck:

[bubbaray]

Well you knew what I meant. :duck:

Well, the thread *is* now in the Canadian forum.... Not sure where it was originally, but the location of the OP does seem to have arisen as an "issue".

I have no clue what the answer would be in the US. IIRC, the heights in the US are "guidelines", whereas they are not in Canada. Having said that, liability (and breach of insurance contract) is a bigger issue in the US than Canada, so it might be a wash. Dunno.

[TechnoGranola]

I figured it was in regard to the Graco SS1, which has a limit of 32" tall or less than 1" above the head.I guess the OP needs to provide some more info to make the question clearer. :)

[Pepse]

sorry ladies, i was refering to any car seat that states a rfing limit

Not one seat in specific.

I do have a Graco Safe Seat and a Britx Blvd. which i believe both are 32 rfing limites. I think the only seat in cdn that does not have a limit is the True fit.

I was asking if you were in an accident and your child had more than 1inch of hard shell but was over 32 inches what would happen in the case of the insurance company and coverage.

The law in Ontario is 20lbs to be ffing and that is it. If that was the case, i could have turned dd at 6 months.

[bubbaray]

The law in Ontario is 20lbs to be ffing and that is it.

ON probably has a law (statute or regulation) that obliges a driver carrying a child to use the restraint in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Here is the language used in BC:

(2) A child referred to in subsection (1) must be securely fastened as follows:

(a) in a restraint system or booster seat referred to in subsection (1) (a) (i), (ii) (A) or (iii) (A) or (b) in accordance with the device manufacturer's instructions for that restraint system or booster seat;


my emphasis.


If its not a law in ON, there is likely a provision in your vehicle insurance.

[snowbird25ca]

The Evenflo convertibles seats only have the 1" of hard shell rule when rf'ing as well. :thumbsup:

My thoughts on insurance in ON without getting out my manual to check the complete law, is that if a company is concerned about you exceeding a 32" height limit, I imagine they'd be pretty darn concerned about a parent not following the minimum 1yr age to be ff'ing. All seats currently available for purchase require a minimum 1yr to ff. (Cosco/Dorel/Safety 1st add to this that if a child is over 30lbs prior to 1yr they must ff, but if under 1yr old and between 5 & 30lbs they must be rf'ing.)

I hate the 32" thing to be honest. And I'm still annoyed at Britax for not changing things when they had the chance when the BLVD was being brought to Canada. Yes, I recommend to parents to follow the 1" of hard shell rule, but I also have no qualms about telling parents there are seats without the numerical height limit and if they'll have issues with going over the 32" to get one of the other seats. (Provided proper fit, use, installation, etc. :thumbsup: )

[Mystie81]

I agree that the 32inch rule is crazy. My son was 32 inches before his 1st birthday. I ended up buying a TF a couple months ago so he could RF longer. It bugs me though that when he is RF in his MA in my mom's car a few times a week it's technically against the law because he's too tall. Thankfully the TF doesn't have that crazy rule for RF.