Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: Comprehensive Insurance problem
I have a comprehensive insurance coverage for my car. Last week I hit a rock, headlight and front portion of the car get smashed. I talked to my insurance agent but he is saying this one does not cover under comprehensive car insurance coverage.
Any help will be appreciated, Janice _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: RE: Comprehensive Insurance problem
It depends on how you hit the rock and where it came from. If unavoidable, i.e. rock falling from overpass, rock picked up from highway debris, then you should be covered under comprehensive. If avoidable, i.e. you were at fault for driving wrecklessly into a rock, then that is collision. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
While not incorrect, not exact either. A "flying object" is considered a Comprehensive loss. If the rock was laying on the ground, it's a collision. Given the area of damage and the amount of damage (hard to imagine such a large roak would be inthe air), I'd say that your agent is correct and this is a Collision loss.
How you hit the car? Are you driving your car blindly? If you hit the car means your fault you have done it intensionally and now you are claiming for that. _________________ I am and always will be a sinner. But that's the beautiful thing about Jesus. I'll always try to be a better person in the eyes of God. But I'm not all of a sudden stepping up on a pedestal and saying I'm holier than thou, 'cause I'm not!
The break of my car failed and it hit the rock. Otherwise, people do not cause damages to their cars themselves, do they? And I think we buy insurance to cover ourselves from such incidents. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Yes, it's a _far_ stretch to reach some type of intential act... especially when it comes to hitting a rock as (and janice mentioneds this), it's difficult to beleive anyone would want to run their vehicel into a rock. If they were drunk, not paying attention, etc, it's still not "intential" and not paying attention to the road does not exclude coverage. If it did, insurance carrier would almost never pay a claim. That is why they are called "accidents".
Janice, have you explained your situation to the insurance company?
Have you claimed right after the accident happened? _________________ I am and always will be a sinner. But that's the beautiful thing about Jesus. I'll always try to be a better person in the eyes of God. But I'm not all of a sudden stepping up on a pedestal and saying I'm holier than thou, 'cause I'm not!
Janice, have you explained your situation to the insurance company?
Have you claimed right after the accident happened?
I am very sorry Cyrus, I forgot to claim right after the accident and now everything is at mess. I don't know whether I will get the insurance benefit or have to pay out of my pocket. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Ooooh, those losses stink. By the way, I know it's hard to believe, but people run into things ALL THE TIME, and you wouldn't believe some of the stories I've heard over my career. But that's another story.
TCope pretty much nailed it. The bottom line is that Comprehensive, sometimes called Other Than Collision, covers (as the name implies) things caused by other than a collision.
Many think that if you hit or get hit by anything OTHER than another car- it's not a collision loss. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Many things that sound like they aren't collisions, like the rock mentioned in the OPs message, a shopping cart hitting your car and a myriad of other things ARE considered a collision loss. As such, if there's coverage, that's the deductible that applies.
Lastly, if you're referring to your vehicle and use the term "comprehensive coverage," don't think that alone means your vehicle is completely insured. That's only one specific part of a package of coverages. "Full" coverage will protect just about all kinds of losses, including the one described in the OP.
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.
I've also handled claims where items lying in the roadway flew up and hit the insured's vehicle, causing damage. HOW it came up out of the roadway was the issue here. A 2x4 piece of wood laying in the road, hit by another vehicle's tire and thrown into the air, where it hits your vehicle - that's a comprehensive claim. The same 2x4 piece of wood, lying in the road, hit by YOUR tire, lifted into the air and taking out your oilpan or causing other damage to your car is a collision damage. The difference? The insurance company will ask if YOU hit the wood, or if THE WOOD hit you.
It's has to do with proximate cause. What initially set the chain of motion that caused the damage. In the case of running over an object, the insureds vehicle initially struck the object that was laying in the road. This is the proximate cause of loss and how coverage is determined. The damage that follows, as long as there is an unbroken chain of events, is all considered under that same, initial cause of loss. So "who" hit the wood is not the issue at all.
Mechanical "issues" don't have much to do with anything. if your wipers are not working and you then hit an object the loss has nothing to do with the wipers. Your vehicle collided with the object... proximate cause.
Am I misunderstanding, or isn't that kind of what I said? Not trying to offend - maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.
The mechanical issue doesn't make a collision loss a comprehensive one - which is what I was trying to say. Regardless of the mechanical issue, your vehicle struck an object, which is a collision loss. Same thing with the wood lying in the road - if you hit it with your vehicle, it's a collision loss, not comprehensive. But if the wood came flying through the air from an unknown source (like it was kicked up by another vehicle), and hit your windshield, it would be a comprehensive loss.
Again, not trying to start an argument - but it seems we're kind of saying the same thing, just in different terms.
