Am I misunderstanding, or isn't that kind of what I said? Not trying to offend - maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.
Perhaps... but the statement as it was was either misleading or incorrect as it was posted. I'm betting you were thinking along the correct lines but the post did not agree completely.
Quote:
I've seen several claims for accidents like this - and when it was due to mechanical failure, it was a collision loss - not comprehensive - every time. Brakes failing, tire blowout, wipers failed (couldn't see and hit something), even had a case of an axle breaking, causing an accident - all of them were considered collision losses by the insurance company, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the mechanical failure.
The loss starting from a "mechanical failure" has nothing to do with the coverage. Example: My brakes fail, my wipers fail, my axle breaks... and I hit a deer. Is this a collision loss as you state? No. Actually, those initial failures are not even covered so again, they have nothing to do with what coverage is provided.
I see what you're saying, tcope, and I appreciate you clarifying it.
I should have added a line to my description about mechanical failure - in the case of someone hitting 'something' when they had a mechanical failure, it wasn't a deer - it was another car, rock, tree, fence, etc - therefore a collision loss. A deerstrike, regardless of whether there was mechanical failure involved, would still be a comprehensive loss.
I never intended to indicate that mechanical failure would have any bearing on an insured's claim - quite the opposite - what I was trying to say was that mechanical failure has nothing to do with how the claim is covered - the coverage is based on the type of loss - collision or comprehensive - not whether you had a mechanical failure that caused it.
The original poster's information sounded like they thought they should be covered by comprehensive coverage because of the mechanical failure - that's why I made that statement. I should have clarified it regarding comp/collision loss. Sorry about that.
I never intended to indicate that mechanical failure would have any bearing on an insured's claim - quite the opposite - what I was trying to say was that mechanical failure has nothing to do with how the claim is covered - the coverage is based on the type of loss - collision or comprehensive - not whether you had a mechanical failure that caused it.
Your post seemed to indicate that, especially in another area. I figured that was what you were saying. I'm just a little anal and have time on my hands right now. A bad combination.
not a problem at all - I sometimes type faster than I think. I know what I intended to say, and that's why I was confused by your post, because I was thinking we were saying the same thing...and in essence we were...at least in my MIND. LOL
I need to slow my fingers down and let my mind catch up to them.
