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: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:36 am Post Subject:
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
Except that would be wrong... a "falling object" or "missile" is considered a comprehensive peril. It does not matter where it came from/started from... if it's "falling" when it causes the damage, it's comprehensive (also, most if not all policies, specifically mention glass breakage as being covered under comprehensive coverage).Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:44 am Post Subject:
OP, if I'm correct, Mercury use independent agents. There are possibly two problems with the information you received. 1) it's possible that you spoke to some peon _in_ the agents office and not the actual agent who knows what they are talking about. Insurance companies don't consider "solo accidents" when determining if rates increase... they look at fault (increased risk) or sometimes the dollar amount spent on the claim (if it's low enough, rates might not be affected). Usually (good) carriers won't increase rates for 1 not at fault accident. 2) If Mercury uses independent agents they may have fed you a line of BS just so you won't file a claim and ruin their loss ratio with the carrier. Agents have been known to do this as sometimes they can command a higher commission if their block of business has low losses (more so with commercial policies then personal lines).
With that said, it is possible that Mercury may increase you rates if you file almost any claim. While Mercury is a huge company, I know 1st hand that the pinch every dime they can from the claims side of the operation.
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:11 am Post Subject:
That's what I said tcope...
Except that would be wrong... a "falling object" or "missile" is considered a comprehensive peril.
if it hits your car before striking the ground it is comp, peril of falling object
I don't understand what you are saying is wrong? I said it is the peril of 'falling object under comp coverage...??????????? :?Both companies that I work for (maybe it's a Missouri thing), ''define'' the falling object peril with the stuplation that it hits the vehicle prior to hitting the ground...if it hits the ground then the car, then it is a collision loss....I assuming meaning a fallen object has to be that fallen...can't fall get up and hit car then fall again...I don't make the rules I (like all pee ons) just have to follow them...I'm not sure where tcope you are disagreeing with me?
I agree ''glass'' is a peril under comp in and off it's self but OP had hood damage as well....suffered at in and during t he same loss.
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:27 am Post Subject:
Except that would be wrong... a "falling object" or "missile" is considered a comprehensive peril.
That's EXACTLY what I said tcope...
if it hits your car before striking the ground it is comp, peril of falling object
I don't understand what you are saying is wrong? I said it is the peril of 'falling object under comp coverage...??????????? :? help a sister out here I don't get what your meaning is?????????
Both companies that I have (and do) work for (maybe it's a Missouri thing), ''define'' the falling object peril with the stiplation that it hits the vehicle prior to hitting the ground...if it hits the ground then the car and it collide (something falls from a truck lets say into the roadway, insured hits it...collision...something falls from a truck and BAM hits the insured vehicle directly, before or prior to hitting the ground then it's comp falling object peril)....I'm assuming the rationale is that a fallen object has to be that falling or in flight immediately prior to impact with the vehicle...I don't make the rules I (like all pee ons) just have to follow them...I'm not sure where tcope you are disagreeing with me?
I agree ''glass'' is a peril under comp in and off it's self but OP had hood damage only right?
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:48 am Post Subject:
I have full coverage, my insurance company is AIG, I used to have selective. Used to be under selective that a broken windshield was $50 to replace under glass coverage. According to AIG, this claim fell under comprehensive, which has a $500 deductable, damage was just under that.
What irritated me the most was the coverage was supposed to be the same or what they call comparative to my selective policy, I found out through this that they do not do glass in Pennsylvania, first time I ever heard that too. They told me this when I ask about glass coverage, have you heard of such a thing?
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:59 am Post Subject:
HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW PEOPLE GET SCREWED OVER!
What irritated me the most was the coverage was supposed to be the same or what they call comparative to my selective policy,
WHEN THEY START SHOPPING...There are many many agencys that will NOT copy the coverages/deductibles from your prior policy ON PURPOSE so their rates will be lower (higher the deductible lower the premium)...That just infuriates me and all the ''good'' agents, I'm sure...What they did is quote you these lower rates, said (probably), ''yep same COVERAGES you had at your prior carrier" but intentionally didn't tell you that your deductibles were raised thereby lowering your premium...man that burns me up...but to honest it's buyer beware, and I guess the comsumers job to review all of that...but still a very sneaky trick as far as I'm concerned and happens ALL THE TIME!
I'm not real sure what the question is good natured,
I found out through this that they do not do glass in Pennsylvania, first time I ever heard that too. They told me this when I ask about glass coverage, have you heard of such a thing?
Glass is an insured peril under the comprehensive coverage of your policy thereby also that deductible applies...Now some companies have little 'special' things...for instance if a windshield can be repaired rather than replaced they may waive your deductible etc....Maybe AIG had a special 50 deduct if it was only a ''glass'' claim? Please explain further what you mean by your question.
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:02 pm Post Subject:
Ok I found it AIG DOES have a special glass thing....see below
Full Glass Coverage: If chosen, any comprehensive car insurance deductible would be waived for glass claims. This option is not available in all states.
All companies won't have this goodnatured as I said some have little 'special' things...
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 02:57 pm Post Subject:
if it hits the ground first then the car, then it's collision
After rereading this I think you were actually speaking in general terms, so you staying if the object hits and _stays_ on the ground. I was applying it to the OP's post, in that we knew the rock hit the hood and windshield. If I apply your statement to the OP's situation, your post seems to indicate if the rock hit the road and then hit the hood and windshield (obviously bouncing up) then it's collision. _That_ would be incorrect.Then I read this:
the falling object peril with the stiplation that it hits the vehicle prior to hitting the ground
I can just tell you that this is incorrect. It does not matter what the rock was doing 1 day before, 1 hour before or 1 minute before the impact... if it was flying at the time of the impact, it's comprehensive. Easy way is to use the area of impact. This indicates if the object would have been in the air when it struck or laying on the ground when struck. My question to whoever told you otherwise is, what was the rock doing at the time of the "accident" and why are you considering where the object was _prior_ to the actual accident? Remember, the policy states "missile", "An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile".Full Glass Coverage: If chosen, any comprehensive car insurance deductible would be waived for glass claims. This option is not available in all states.
This sound like it addresses certain states that have laws stating the deductible for certain glass is required to be waived. SC, FL, KY are three that come to mind but there are about 7. Some waive it for windshields only, some are all "glass".Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 05:27 pm Post Subject:
On my other policy it was just called that, Glass coverage, never was an issue. It is one of the cheapest things on the vehicle that needs repair, just irritates me that I thought the coverage was comparable, meaning about the same. Guess you never really know until you go to use it. I just thank god that I bought gap insurance when purchasing this car so if it is ever a total loss, my butt will be covered. thanks for all your input on this claim. appreciate it.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:52 am Post Subject:
Agreed tcope I think we are saying the same thing in different terms...
if it was flying at the time of the impact, it's comprehensive.
What I am saying is it MUST BE IN FLIGHT, prior to the vehicle and it colliding.
if the object hits and _stays_ on the ground.
yes..and then the car hit's it......it is collision.if it was flying at the time of the impact, it's comprehensive.
agreed, with the exception if the vehicle hit's it and 'sends' it in flight it's collision..
something very similar happened to me, ""I"" ran over a piece of broken leaf spring that was in the road, when I hit it, it was sent airborn, right into the lower portion of my drivers door...it was collision...(and don't think I didn't try hard, to get it changed to comp falling object peril...i even went so far as to talk with the MO Dept of Ins, and clear up to the vp of claims for the entire company...i worked for them at the time), because although when it hit my vehice it was airborne, 'i' hit it (collided with a still or non-moving object) and 'sent' it into flight....now had I been lucky enough for the truck in front of me to have hit it and sent it flying into my truck, would've been comp...does that make sense at all?
Add your comment