by Guest » Tue Dec 04, 2007 07:06 am
A rock fell out of a truck on the freeway and bounced accross my hood. I didn't see the license plate. My insurance agent said that mercury will raise my rates if I turn this in because it is a "solo accident". It isn't my fault a rock hit my car! Can they do this? I've never had a claim before. I've paid them every month for years. It will be $1200 to fix and my deductible is $500.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:49 am Post Subject: factors that elevate premiums
Hey, the premium rise that you're getting scared off may result due to a number of factors-
# The state where you reside
# The insurer that you've opted for
# The nature of the damage
# The severity of the damage
So I don't see any reason why you need to be so worried even before weighing it properly. Cheer up!
Volga-Danubecross
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:51 am Post Subject:
Good morning mbaffo, and welcome to the community...well did they say if they were charging this as collision or comprehensive? The accident as you discribe it may differ with each company. The way I have always deteremined the difference, (the two companies I have worked for I should say) is if it hits the ground first then the car, then it's collision...if it hits your car before striking the ground it is comp, peril of falling object....really either way this should be 'non-chargeable' i think you should...review you policy closely...then contact your states dept of insurance they will be able to tell you if this is allowed as a 'chargeable' accident. I've never heard of all ''solo'' accidents being chargeable... :?
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:03 pm Post Subject:
I just had a similar thing happen to me, a lady hit a piece of rebar on the road. I came up and bounced off my hood and broke my windshield. I have not filed a claim for over 10 years and the insurance company gave me hassle. I ended up cancelling the claim and fixing the windshield and hood myself, I was really irritated that there was no backing there. I pay faithfully and have not filed a claim in a very very long time.
What really irritated me was that I know people who go out, get loaded, wreck their cars and then beat it with a deer hide and claim deer damage and get paid for this type of crap. I used to think badly about this, not anymore, good for them at least they are getting some of their damage paid. I am thinking about going back to my old carrier, it was a few bucks more but I felt secure in the coverage.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:08 pm Post Subject:
WHAT? what kind of hassle could they have given you? good natured?
I just had a similar thing happen to me, a lady hit a piece of rebar on the road. I came up and bounced off my hood and broke my windshield. I have not filed a claim for over 10 years and the insurance company gave me hassle. I ended up cancelling the claim and fixing the windshield and hood myself, I was really irritated that there was no backing there. I pay faithfully and have not filed a claim in a very very long time.
How much OVER your deductible did it cost? (this more than likely would've been considered collision )..
wreck their cars and then beat it with a deer hide and claim deer damage and get paid for this type of crap
These are the types of people/claims I bust monthly......Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:11 pm Post Subject: Aftermath
Listen mbaffo,
I think it needs to be established first that you were not the party at-fault. Good insurers would often make it a point that if they find their insured to be at-fault, then they would certainly increase the premium rate while renewing the policy. This increment could be higher if the company needs to pay more than $750 towards property damage & collision coverage. Under such a circumstance, your medical coverage & PIP may undergo a revision as well. But keeping in mind what you've suggested (assuming you're not by any chance the party at-fault) over here, I don't see any reason for your premiums to rise abruptly.
Drilled-cow
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:16 pm Post Subject:
agreed drilled cow, EXCEPT
This increment could be higher if the company needs to pay more than $750 towards property damage & collision coverage
all carriers have their own thresholds..you companies may be 750.00 mine is 600, another 500 so it is wise to know what YOUR companies ''at fault'' payment minimum is before a rate increase can be generated.Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:01 pm Post Subject:
The information contained in the posts regarding the "threshold limit" is generally NOT determined by the individual insurance companies, but rather by the state in which you reside. For instance, in Oregon, the threshold is $1,000. The carrier is normally required to abide by the state threshold limits.
Depending on the determination as to what type of loss (collision or comprehensive) will also determine what (if any) rate increase you will suffer. Personally, I would consider this a comprehensive loss, and as such, would not be (typically) subject to a rate increase.
If your carrier is considering this a collision loss, you may see a rate adjustment at your renewal.
Good luck!
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:57 pm Post Subject: claim
Do you have full coverage ? We had someone break our windshield once and we had full coverage .It paid for the windshield .Don't remember if it was a deductible or not but our rates never went up. Thank God!
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:59 pm Post Subject:
NOT determined by the individual insurance companies, but rather by the state in which you reside.
interesting! I always thought the carrier set it...maybe i am thinking of a carrier i worked for that set theirs higher than what the state allowed, meaning if the state said 500 they allowed 600...maybe that's where i got that......very interesting ins. teacher...i'm gonna check on that carrier.Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:26 am Post Subject:
Lori said:
maybe i am thinking of a carrier i worked for that set theirs higher than what the state allowed, meaning if the state said 500 they allowed 600.
Please keep in mind that an insurer is always allowed to be more beneficial to an insured than the state law requires, but they cannot be more restrictive than state law.
Lori's example of the carrier setting a higher threshold than what the state laws allow is perfectly fine. If, for example, the state set the threshold at $500, the carrier would be allowed to set their threshold at, say $600, in order to raise rates for an at-fault involvement. The carrier could NOT, for example, set their threshold at anything less than the state's number. In the above example, the carrier could not set their threshold at, say, $300.
So Lori, once again...you're on target. Keep it up!
InsTeacher 8)
Add your comment