by Guest » Sun May 20, 2007 05:31 am
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
Any help will be appreciated, Janice
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 04:49 pm Post Subject: Health Insurance ,USA-AL,AZ,NW,WA,HW..,.many more
just Visit
healthninsurance.net/
This willl Definately Help You.
Avin Techno :roll:
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:33 pm Post Subject:
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.
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 03:04 pm Post Subject:
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.
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 04:48 pm Post Subject:
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. :-)
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:58 am Post Subject:
Am I misunderstanding, or isn't that kind of what I said? Not trying to offend - maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.
Perhaps... but the statement as it was was either misleading or incorrect as it was posted. I'm betting you were thinking along the correct lines but the post did not agree completely.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.
The loss starting from a "mechanical failure" has nothing to do with the coverage. Example: My brakes fail, my wipers fail, my axle breaks... and I hit a deer. Is this a collision loss as you state? No. Actually, those initial failures are not even covered so again, they have nothing to do with what coverage is provided.Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:51 am Post Subject:
I see what you're saying, tcope, and I appreciate you clarifying it.
I should have added a line to my description about mechanical failure - in the case of someone hitting 'something' when they had a mechanical failure, it wasn't a deer - it was another car, rock, tree, fence, etc - therefore a collision loss. A deerstrike, regardless of whether there was mechanical failure involved, would still be a comprehensive loss.
I never intended to indicate that mechanical failure would have any bearing on an insured's claim - quite the opposite - what I was trying to say was that mechanical failure has nothing to do with how the claim is covered - the coverage is based on the type of loss - collision or comprehensive - not whether you had a mechanical failure that caused it.
The original poster's information sounded like they thought they should be covered by comprehensive coverage because of the mechanical failure - that's why I made that statement. I should have clarified it regarding comp/collision loss. Sorry about that.
Sorry if I didn't state it clearly.
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 02:59 pm Post Subject:
I never intended to indicate that mechanical failure would have any bearing on an insured's claim - quite the opposite - what I was trying to say was that mechanical failure has nothing to do with how the claim is covered - the coverage is based on the type of loss - collision or comprehensive - not whether you had a mechanical failure that caused it.
Your post seemed to indicate that, especially in another area. I figured that was what you were saying. I'm just a little anal and have time on my hands right now. A bad combination. 8)
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 03:38 pm Post Subject:
not a problem at all - I sometimes type faster than I think. I know what I intended to say, and that's why I was confused by your post, because I was thinking we were saying the same thing...and in essence we were...at least in my MIND. LOL
I need to slow my fingers down and let my mind catch up to them.
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 06:25 pm Post Subject:
yes ,i think your nsurance agent is all right. because you are smashed.you have more responsibility in the accident.
Add your comment