[SirJangle]

Originally Posted by SSDan

I'm sorry. You missed my point. If your insurance company would accept that this was from flying debris then it would be covered as a comprehensive coverage claim and not subject to being a chargeable loss and raising your rates. But if the company pushed back and said you collided with an object laying in the road then it would be considered a collision coverage loss and subject to being a chargeable accident and raising your rates.

Here is the difference. If something flies into you car (its moving under its own momentum when it strikes your car) - its a comprehensive coverage loss. If you run into something that is laying on the road and not moving then its a collision coverage loss. Collision coverage losses are the ones that cause rate increases.

Looks like its a moot point as you've already put the car in the shop and started repairs. Good luck and I hope you get it back in good repair quickly.

Road hazards are almost always considered comp claims.

[Snowwolfe]

Originally Posted by cdrptrks

Also if you have a dashcam and can pull the truck's license plate, maybe the semi would be at fault and their insurance would pay for repairs.

Not sure maybe you could consider it a hit and run for insurance purposes (if you have uninsured motorist coverage) which wouldn't impact your rates but the driver might not have known that his tire damaged your car.

I feel your pain...my stock front splitter got damaged by an invisible piece of blown out tire laying on freshly paved asphalt while I was driving at night last year.

You might want to google what underinsured and uninsured coverage covers.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

Road hazards are almost always considered comp claims.

It gets "gray" when it's something that flies off of another vehicle. Once that item touches the road, things change and it becomes a collision claim. That's why I stated what I did earlier about being sure to describe the issue as an item that came off of another vehicle and directly struck your vehicle. Otherwise, it's collision and you have to have the other driver's information for subro or you're going to eat it.

[SSDan]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

Road hazards are almost always considered comp claims.

Originally Posted by ember1205

It gets "gray" when it's something that flies off of another vehicle. Once that item touches the road, things change and it becomes a collision claim. That's why I stated what I did earlier about being sure to describe the issue as an item that came off of another vehicle and directly struck your vehicle. Otherwise, it's collision and you have to have the other driver's information for subro or you're going to eat it.

Yep, SirJangle is not incorrect -often the insurance carrier will accept your description of the loss that the road hazard was in motion especially if the damage aligns that something hit your car versus running over something. Ember is more correct. There is so much misinformation and lack of understanding about insurance coverage. Its easy to repeat what someone else has told you about a claim they had or that they heard from someone else because who wants to read the actual policy. It will bore you to tears! Well I have read many policies and handled thousands of claims during my 33 year tenure with a major auto insurance carrier and determining what is a collision loss and what is a comprehensive loss always created debate.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by SSDan

Well I have read many policies and handled thousands of claims during my 33 year tenure with a major auto insurance carrier and determining what is a collision loss and what is a comprehensive loss always created debate.

You're likely familiar with the phrase "What the bold print giveth, the fine print taketh away."

[SirJangle]

Originally Posted by ember1205

You're likely familiar with the phrase "What the bold print giveth, the fine print taketh away."

Yes, the insurance policy gives you the world while exclusions take it away piece by piece. That's why you never shop for insurance by price alone. You must read the policy and understand what has happened by the time you get to the end. If you find it incomprehensible, you must find someone you trust to explain it to you. A small savings in premium will be forgotten when there's an uncovered claim. Insurance policies are written by attorneys and are confusing by design.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

Yes, the insurance policy gives you the world while exclusions take it away piece by piece. That's why you never shop for insurance by price alone. You must read the policy and understand what has happened by the time you get to the end. If you find it incomprehensible, you must find someone you trust to explain it to you. A small savings in premium will be forgotten when there's an uncovered claim. Insurance policies are written by attorneys and are confusing by design.

If? IF?

Policies are written by attorneys, but they aren't specifically "confusing by design." When laws were first being written, the lawmakers were paid by the word. This is why legal language, to this day, is still heavily reliant on latin (because we can't easily translate the larger components of laws although individual words and phrases can be done one at a time) and are ridiculously lengthy.

One other side effect of making these policies unnecessarily wordy is that they are open to interpretation. And since most courts will side with the consumer for reasonable claims, all that is necessary to get many claims covered is to speak with the agents calmly and provide data that refutes their decision. In CT, all I have to do is utter the phrase "I have attempted to negotiate with you in good faith and you have failed to do the same - I will be referring this to the office of the Insurance Commissioner for review" and things change pretty quickly. Of course, I do have to have been actually attempting to negotiate in good faith.

Insurance companies will do almost anything to avoid arbitration when a client has a reasonable claim. Arbitration outcomes that rule against them are huge negative marks on their records.

[jbp8653]

Originally Posted by SSDan

I'm sorry. You missed my point. If your insurance company would accept that this was from flying debris then it would be covered as a comprehensive coverage claim and not subject to being a chargeable loss and raising your rates. But if the company pushed back and said you collided with an object laying in the road then it would be considered a collision coverage loss and subject to being a chargeable accident and raising your rates.

Here is the difference. If something flies into you car (its moving under its own momentum when it strikes your car) - its a comprehensive coverage loss. If you run into something that is laying on the road and not moving then its a collision coverage loss. Collision coverage losses are the ones that cause rate increases.

Looks like its a moot point as you've already put the car in the shop and started repairs. Good luck and I hope you get it back in good repair quickly.

Great info!!! Learn something new every day!!!!

[jbp8653]

Seen the car today. It's all painted but still apart. They blended the front fender perfectly. The bumper paint is also very good. Just waiting for the rubber piece under the front to come in and replace. Hopefully get it back tomorrow. Thanks for all of your great comments!!! Means a lot to a life long car guy!!!!!

[Snowwolfe]

Originally Posted by jbp8653

Seen the car today. It's all painted but still apart. They blended the front fender perfectly. The bumper paint is also very good. Just waiting for the rubber piece under the front to come in and replace. Hopefully get it back tomorrow. Thanks for all of your great comments!!! Means a lot to a life long car guy!!!!!

And you got rid of a bunch of paint chips in the process.
Might be a good time to consider some PPF on the front end.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Snowwolfe

And you got rid of a bunch of paint chips in the process.
Might be a good time to consider some PPF on the front end.

Yeah, if he can deal with not driving it for at least 30 days after he gets it back so the paint can cure.

[jbp8653]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Yeah, if he can deal with not driving it for at least 30 days after he gets it back so the paint can cure.

Exactly. I did have the car ceramic coated when I first got it. I called the guy and he said I had to wait 30 days.

[MartinLe]

Originally Posted by SSDan

I'm sorry. You missed my point. If your insurance company would accept that this was from flying debris then it would be covered as a comprehensive coverage claim and not subject to being a chargeable loss and raising your rates. But if the company pushed back and said you collided with an object laying in the road then it would be considered a collision coverage loss and subject to being a chargeable accident and raising your rates.

Here is the difference. If something flies into you car (its moving under its own momentum when it strikes your car) - its a comprehensive coverage loss. If you run into something that is laying on the road and not moving then its a collision coverage loss. Collision coverage losses are the ones that cause rate increases.

Looks like its a moot point as you've already put the car in the shop and started repairs. Good luck and I hope you get it back in good repair quickly.

Great distinction between flying and stationary debris. My insurance agent and I have laughed about a deer running into me and me running into the deer. Collision vs comprehensive. She has used the blown tire road debris as an example of a collision claim. I am eager to hit her with the flying debris scenario.

[SSDan]

Originally Posted by MartinLe

Great distinction between flying and stationary debris. My insurance agent and I have laughed about a deer running into me and me running into the deer. Collision vs comprehensive. She has used the blown tire road debris as an example of a collision claim. I am eager to hit her with the flying debris scenario.

Another factor between comprehensive and collision is about control. Things out of the driver's control such as moving animals and flying debris tends to fall under comp coverage. Things that should or could be under the drivers control such as anything lying in the road will be considered collision. I realize that a big old tire gator laying there with heavy traffic blocking your visibility and/or ability to maneuver out of its way sure feels like you had no control but it will still go down as a collision loss.

Have fun sparring with your agent.