Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: Is collision protection a must for my car!
Hi members!
Is Collision coverage a must for my car ? Do i need a comprehensive & coll. coverage even though I didn't ever had any accidents ? Pls inform me if you have the right knowledge! Thanks, Norma Medvedev _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: simple questions..
Hi Norma,
I'd like to ask you some simple questions: Do you know the present worth of your vehicle ? Do you know the cost of coverage ? Now, this is a crucial decision-making phase where in you need to know if your vehicle needs collision protection.
Compare the cost of insuring your car offered in the market with the cost of repairing it or say for that matter replacing it!
This will give you an idea to choose the best way out!
Thanks, Evan
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: compare!
Hi there! You may rest assured that you'd definitely need it in case your car is leased or financed. If the worth of your car is a little more than that of the deductible then a collision or comprehensive coverage won't be the right choice. Just make sure that you get to calculate the premium value of your car for the next 6 months & multiply it by 4 to check and see if the resultant is greater than the actual value of your car. If its so, then I'd rather suggest that you don't for this physical damage cover. Hope you got my idea. Regards, Fatman
Hi,
Though such coverage is not a must for your car, it always helps to be on the safer side and have one. Thus, its important to be clear in the mind as to what collision and comprehensive policy covers.
* Collision coverage pays for damage or replacement incurred uring an accident.
* Cases arising as a result of non-collision like, vandalism, fire, theft, etc. are covered under a comprehensive coverage.
Hope that helps!
andy007
I'm going to add a little clarification to the collision vs. comprehensive loss definition, just so there's no confusion.
Comprehensive Coverage also covers auto-animal collisions (deer, dogs, cattle, birds, etc.), subject to your deductible. It also covers anything hitting your car OTHER THAN ANOTHER VEHICLE. (Tree, rock, lightning, hail, ufo's falling out of the sky-just kidding, etc.)
Collision Coverage will cover losses due to an accident with (or caused by) another car. However, the coverage will be subject to your deductible AND your form of insurance will make a big difference (tort or no-fault) - as well as who was at fault, and if it can be proven. For example - if you are forced off the road by another car, which leaves the scene, and you hit a tree, unless you can prove that the car that forced you off the road existed, YOUR insurance policy will have to foot the bill. This also applies when a deer or other large animal runs into the road in front of you, forcing you to slam on your brakes or swerve - if you hit a tree, fence, etc., your insurance company will treat it as a COLLISION LOSS, not a Comprehensive Loss, because you can't prove that you swerved to miss an animal - all you can prove is that you hit a tree or fence. That's why you will often hear it said that when an animal runs in front of you, it's better to hit it than to run off the road avoiding it - because it's easier to prove you hit an animal (evidence is usually left on the vehicle) than to explain that you were avoiding one. I know this sounds harsh to animal-lovers (I am one myself), but it makes sense from an insurance standpoint.
SueBe- you ar right! My elderly aunt swerved to miss two deer in the road, and went off the road doing alot of damage to her car.
When the insurance agent came out, he told her that next time to hit the deer, and she would have proof of her claim!!
I though she misunderstood, so I called, and he said the same thing. The problem with that is, that a deer that is running carries alot of force, and they have been several people killed on the roadways hitting them.
We have swerved alot of times to avoid them, just natural instinct, I guess!!
We quit carrying full coverage on our vehicles when they became older. We were paying high premiums and I finally realized that the cost/replacement/age/premium was not working!..Karen
I'm going to add a little clarification to the collision vs. comprehensive loss definition, just so there's no confusion.
The clarification would be good... if correct.
Quote:
Comprehensive Coverage also covers auto-animal collisions (deer, dogs, cattle, birds, etc.), subject to your deductible. It also covers anything hitting your car OTHER THAN ANOTHER VEHICLE. (Tree, rock, lightning, hail, UFO's falling out of the sky-just kidding, etc.)
Not even close. Collision is just that... covers your vehicle when it collides with anything or is upset (turned over). Comprehensive has 7 named perils. These include collision with an animal. So... when you run into a rock, tree, (you can run into lightning?) it's a collision loss, not comprehensive as you stated. Also listed under comprehensive is contact with a falling object. So running into hail or a UFO would be comprehensive... as long as it was suspended in air when it struck the vehicle. If it's on the ground, it's a collision loss.
Quote:
Collision Coverage will cover losses due to an accident with (or caused by) another car. However, the coverage will be subject to your deductible AND your form of insurance will make a big difference (tort or no-fault) - as well as who was at fault, and if it can be proven. For example - if you are forced off the road by another car, which leaves the scene, and you hit a tree, unless you can prove that the car that forced you off the road existed, YOUR insurance policy will have to foot the bill. This also applies when a deer or other large animal runs into the road in front of you, forcing you to slam on your brakes or swerve - if you hit a tree, fence, etc., your insurance company will treat it as a COLLISION LOSS, not a Comprehensive Loss, because you can't prove that you swerved to miss an animal - all you can prove is that you hit a tree or fence. That's why you will often hear it said that when an animal runs in front of you, it's better to hit it than to run off the road avoiding it - because it's easier to prove you hit an animal (evidence is usually left on the vehicle) than to explain that you were avoiding one. I know this sounds harsh to animal-lovers (I am one myself), but it makes sense from an insurance standpoint.
Not exactly... when you swerve to miss a deer and collide with something it's not collision because you cannot "prove" you swerved to miss a deer (as even if you could, let say, through the use of several witnesses or video) it's still collision as (and here is the thing) your never _collided with the animal_ as described as a named peril under comprehensive coverage.
As far as the statements initially made in the last quote paragraph, they are really not correct either. Someone else being liable for a loss or not is the core part of who ultimately pays for the loss. If you have collision insurance, to address your loss, then this only changes what options you have to initially settle your own loss. I mention this as you segway this right into proving a deer caused you to collide with something, making it a comprehensive loss... which is incorrect.
When the insurance agent came out, he told her that next time to hit the deer, and she would have proof of her claim!!
As mentioned above, I think there was a misunderstanding/misquote. If your grandmother would have struck the deer, there would have been proof of a collision with an animal so it would have been a comprehensive loss. Otherwise, it's collision no matter what she struck. Either way the damage to the vehicle is covered (as long as the policy contains comprehensive and collision coverage), it's just obtaining coverage from different portions of the policy
