driving to the game, BIG rock flies up, hits my roof and dents the **** out of it = comprehnsive claim. driving home, big chunk of rubber flies up from under the truck in front of me, comes at me, goes under/out the side of my car, tearing half of my bumper off, slicing the brake cable, etc = collision claim. of course, the only reason why this sucks is that my comp. deductible is $100, and my collision one is $1,000. i hate life right now.
I had the same thing happen to me in '98 with a blowout from a truck wrecking my front end. It was fixed under the comprehensive claim, not collision, because it was something in the road, not an accident.
well **** then. they also told me that if I'd hit an animal, it would have been a comp. claim. actually, I was hoping El Guapo would post on this and enlighten me, since I'm fairly certain that there is a really simple explanation for this.
I am no expert or even moderately informed, but I think your insurance company is screwing you. You did not have a collision. Your car was hit by flying debris.
Exactly. For reference I have USAA if that make's a difference. They told me that if the tired had come off the car in front of me in the course of an accident, it would be collision, but since it was just a tire that blew off a semi, hit the crar in front of me, went up in the air and then came down on my hood, it was 'flying debris' and no different than getting hit by gravel that cracks your windshield.
I don't know why you couldn't blame the other driver who essentially was a hit and run driver = Uninsured motorist.
Under any definition of comprehensive v collision I've ever seen the tire rubber damage would still be treated as "other than collision". I'd file a complaint with the Consumer Protection Division at the Department of Insurance. The Link
just called the claim center. the guy was clueless. my head hurts. I asked what factors determine debris damage as a collision vs. comp. claim. His answer..."it depends". no ****. what does it depend on? Where the damage to the car is. WHAT? Where the debris was (air vs. ground)...can't be, since my rock and tiire were both in the air and classified differently. he basically told me that my ******* declarations page wouldn't help answer my need for the definitions. interesting. i thought that'd be the legal document explaining how the contract works and ****. then, he basically said, it's hard to tell you why a claim would be defined as a particul;ar type. I then said, LOOK. here's the facts. why is this not comp. claim? he then told me to just ask the adjuster about it when he comes out. that would be great, except the adjuster will be here exactly at "whenever o'clock" on either Tues., Wed., Thurs. or Friday.
You need to talk to a claims supervisor before the adjustor shows up. Your declarations page is simply a summary of your coverages, deductibles, etc. You should have also received the actual Texas Auto Policy which would provide legal definitions for coverage. As a past agent, and based solely on what you have posted in this thread, I believe both your incidents are other than collision claims.
This is the language from the Texas Motor Vehicle Policy that I believe is relevant: Insuring Agreement - Collision Coverage: ...we will pay for a loss to a covered vehicle when it overturns or is in a collision with another object... Insuring Agreement - Comprehensive Coverage: A comprehensive loss os a loss to a covered vehicle...other than a loss covered under Collision Coverage, including, but not limited to, any of the following: 1. contact with an animal; 2. explosion or earthquake; 3. fire; 4. malicious mischief or vandalism; 5. missiles or falling objects; 6. riot or civil commotion; etc., etc., etc. The most probable explanation I can think of for their reasoning that collision vs comprehensive is based on "where the damage occurred" lies in the fact that a falling object cannot cause damage to the undercarraige of your vehicle. Secondary to this may be the assumption that the tire tread was stationary on the roadway. The clause in the collision coverage "collision with another object" assumes a collision with another vehicle or a stationary object such as a telephone pole, tree, or whatever. However, you should argue that the tire tread was a missile and neither a falling object nor a stationary object, and it is reasonable to see that it could have been unavoidably thrown into the path of your vehicle, gone under and done damage on the way out. If the company does not agree, hire a lawyer and take them to court. I think their reasoning is extremely flimsy, and they know it. Call their bluff and they will probably crumble, but be sure you are talking to somebody other than the front line, inexperienced call center claims handlers.
Yeah talk to a supervisor. The idiots that just read off the screen are never any help. IT's not all there fault, but still. Usually, the supervisor will have more understand and actually has the power to do something about it. Unless you're fidelity and every person from the schmuck answering the phone to the CEO is a worthless piece of crap that probably couldn't spell their own name if it wasn't on their name tag. But that's another thread.
Insurance adjuster here...thanks for all the great comments about us.... Sangre is right in his definitions. You had a COLLISION with another object(the tire) that was not part of your own car. Had it been a tire tread from your car that came loose and damaged the undercarriage, yes it would be a COMP claim. It was not a falling object like gravel or rocks as the Comp claim was. We run into this claim situation ALL the time in Texas.... check withThe Link with any questions.
How is it not a falling object?...."goes under/out the side of my car". That's why, You ran into it, therefore a collision. The rocks from the Comp claim you did not run into, it ran into you. I realize it is a fine line, but that's insurance. It would be no different if you hit a tree branch in the road you just happened not to see. The whole point is, you hit the object, not vice versa.
Not to be rude, but the way you are explaining makes it sounds like it is the EXACT same thing. If a rock is kicked up by the car in front of me and I am moving in my car, it is comp because it hit me But if a piece of tire is kicked up by the car in front of me and I amoving in my car, it is a collision because I ran into it? I'd love to see that one argued in front of a jury.
Having spent more years than I care to remember in the claims area of USAA, I will say that the distinction we made on these types of losses was whether or not the object was in motion at the time of the impact. If the piece of tire was resting in the roadway and you ran over it, that's a COLLISION. If it was kicked up and in motion at the time it impacted your roof/windshield/grill/etc..., that's OTHER THAN COLLISION. Using Hat's line of logic, we would have to measure the trajectory of any rock or pebble that hit a windshield at the exact moment of impact to see if it was still moving upward, or actually had started to "fall" in order to determine if the loss would be considered Collision or Comprehensive. Perhaps, when I was adjusting claims we just chose to take a more reasonable approach to the loss settlement. "Were you stupid and ran over it while it was just sitting there in the middle of the road?" (Collision) Or, "Did your car get damaged by an object that was in motion and impacted your car?" (Comprehensive) Getting more nit-picky than that IS what gives claims adjusters and insurance companies bad reputations. And, Hellraiser is right, I'd love to see that one argued in front of a jury. Most jurors will either be able to recall a similar situation that they had been in, or would be able to sympathize with the "unavoidability" of the impact from a moving object.
to the adjuster above: I am on hold with allstate right now. she read the notes that said the object 0tire) was moving/airborne when i hit it. she told me that UNEQUIVOCALLY this is a comp. claim and she is fixing it now. Sangre's definitions are exactly what language she used to tell me this was correct.
Excellent!! Glad it got resolved for you. It all boils down to defintions... See we aren't all bad. Guess I better return some Voicemails I received while I was playing on Hornfans.....
for what its worth - from someone who knows TDI - legal mainly goes after people who steal from grandmas... and people people do don't keep CE records.
