Comprehensive coverage?
Adam Prentice
construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
- Adam Prentice
bhoudek
and the hood opened due to some mechanical defect-----just my read
on that. Bill
Adam Prentice wrote in message <37499893...@adhere.on.ca>...
CW9371
>construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
>damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
>don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
>under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
>
You hit something casuing your hood to open. Thats a grey area. Depending on
the companyand damages they may pay it out of comp or maybe out of collition.
Then again they may deny it. If they deny it speak to a supervisor.
Christopher Wilcox, President
CGW Insurance/Investments
Registered Investment Advisor
www.cgwi.com
cwi...@cgwi.com
Isabella N
>damage to the hood and windshield.
K, here's my opinion . . . hitting the pothole .. . collision. No damage
from the collision, but it caused the faulty latch on the hood to break .. .
probable exclusion under comprehensive coverage for the mechanical breakdown or
faulty workmanship of the latch . . . . . . BUT, broken/damaged glass, for any
reason I can think of, IS normally covered under the comprehensive section. So
yes, I think there is coverage for the glass only, under the Comp.
Let us know what your agent says!
Isa
If you can stay calm, while all around you is chaos...then you probably haven't
completely understood the situation.
SGuacamole
>construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
>damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
>don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
>under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
>
>
>
This is a collision. Your car collided with the road and caused your hood to
fly up, etc.
Had you hit a deer, however, which caused your hood to fly up and damage your
car, this WOULD be covered under comprehensive.
John Haggerty
will still cover the glass damage under comprehensive, regardless of cause,
so you may have some coverage available.
--
John Haggerty
Adam Prentice <r...@adhere.on.ca> wrote in message
news:37499893...@adhere.on.ca...
> While driving down the highway this weekend I encountered some
> construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
> damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
> don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
> under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
>
>
> - Adam Prentice
>
caro...@my-dejanews.com
Hitting a pothole is considered a collision loss. The damage to the
car from your hood opening is a result of that.
It does bring to mind however, an" old claims story" of a wheel flying
off a car and then back under the car causing damage. This claim was
labeled as a comprehensive loss because an adjuster determined that a
car could not hit itself.
I would be very interested in seeing other agents opinions on this one.
In article <BNy23.7$T46.3...@news1.i1.net>,
"bhoudek" <bho...@i1.net> wrote:
> Doubt an adjustor would find coverage. Your car collided with an
object
> and the hood opened due to some mechanical defect-----just my read
> on that. Bill
> Adam Prentice wrote in message <37499893...@adhere.on.ca>...
> >While driving down the highway this weekend I encountered some
> >construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
> >damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision
and I
> >don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be
covered
> >under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
> >
> >
> >- Adam Prentice
> >
>
>
--
Carolfair
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
CoverMe
: While driving down the highway this weekend I encountered some
: construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
: damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
: don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
: under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
My pair of pennies, Adam . . .
I vote for collision loss. Why, you ask? I'll be glad to tell you. Under
the ISO personal auto policy I'm looking at (which happens to be old, the
1988 edition), coverage is found under Part D. "Collision" refers, among
other things, to "impact with another vehicle or object," the road bed, in
this case. No reference to a case such as yours is described as "other
than collision." Under Exclusions you will find "road damage to tires," so
I suspect you may have trouble recovering anything for the tire itself.
Still, I can find nothing to preclude coverage for the damage to the hood.
What some others so far have claimed, I assume, is that coverage would be
eliminated due to this exclusion: "Damage due and confined to: c.
mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure;" This, in my opinion, would
go in your favor, as the damage is not completely but partially due to
mechanical failure, and is certainly not confined to it. A reading of the
history behind this language reveals that its purpose was to prevent
coverage for mechanical breakdown, like burning up your engine due to
overheating, etc.
Adam, if you can't get this one paid, email me at insurance at panamacity
dot com and I will be happy to help you further.
Shoot at me on this one, everyone, I'm feeling my oats today. . .
Trey Hutt, CPCU
remove tigger to reply
SGuacamole
fallen tree, a construction horse, an orange cone or a bicycle, its considered
a collision loss.
If you hit a deer in the road, its considered a comprehensive loss.
What if you hit a DEAD deer in the road?
(I actually had this claim once back when I was an inside claim rep. I'm
curious what other people think about it.)
Chris Browne
under comprehensive. Let us know how this gets settled.
Sandi
>construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
>damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision and I
>don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be covered
>under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
>
>
>
Adam Prentice
as they say it's not due to my driving.
Adam
Jeff4BKWK
for generations:
>What if you hit a DEAD deer in the road?
I vote comprehensive (or, if your a picker of nits, other than collsion). Why,
you ask?
Under Part D - Coverage for damage to your auto, you find the following:
"Loss by the following is considered other
than 'collsion':
9. Contact with bird or animal;"
Seems to me, there is no mention of 'living' in the above Insuring Agreement.
I am (like others to remain nameless) reading from an old PAP because I'm too
lazy to get up and retrieve a newer form, but I don't believe the wordage has
changed.
Jeff Kane
Brounell Kramer Waldor Kane Agency - Bonds / Insurance
Union, NJ
http://members.aol.com/bkwkins
James W. Moore, CIC
<19990526194942...@ng-fm1.aol.com>...
>So, here's one to ponder. If you hit something stationary in the road, be
it a
>fallen tree, a construction horse, an orange cone or a bicycle, its
considered
>a collision loss.
>
>If you hit a deer in the road, its considered a comprehensive loss.
>
>curious what other people think about it.)
Well unless an autopsy is done, I think I'd just say it jumped out in front
of me <g>
(oops, is that insurance fraud? )
Actually the policy reads "contact with bird or animal" , it makes no
mention of the bird or animal's current vitality <g> Unless you contend that
a dead animal is an "object", I think it would have to be settled under
"other than collision"
jim
--
James W. Moore, CIC
Insurance Industry Guide
About.com
http://insurance.about.com
insuran...@about.com
Chris Browne
Sandi
Todd Copeland
contract of adhesion.
SGuacamole wrote:
>
> So, here's one to ponder. If you hit something stationary in the road, be it a
> fallen tree, a construction horse, an orange cone or a bicycle, its considered
> a collision loss.
>
> If you hit a deer in the road, its considered a comprehensive loss.
>
> What if you hit a DEAD deer in the road?
> (I actually had this claim once back when I was an inside claim rep. I'm
> curious what other people think about it.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Spam my address, expect your account
and any URL listed to be terminated promptly.
Consider it my reminder that spam does not pay.
-----------------------------------------------------
CoverMe
Which reminded me of an old claim . . . I'll get back to it.
Jeff, in response, registered the following vote (with which I agree):
: I vote comprehensive (or, if your a picker of nits, other than collsion).
Why,
: you ask?
<snippage>
: 9. Contact with bird or animal;"
:
: Seems to me, there is no mention of 'living' in the above Insuring
Agreement.
Agreed. We had a claim some years ago now commonly known locally as
"the road kill claim." Night, rural road, customer hits very large road
kill (though I'm pretty sure it was a PA and not a deer, since there were
no skid marks). This was paid (by American States, I think) as comp loss.
We've also had claims of hitting debris in the road (I specifically
remember a claimant hitting tire remnants from a tractor-trailer) all of
which were paid as collision. It could be argued, I suppose, that the
animal, once dead, becomes an object, but that seems a stretch to me. I
like Jeff's angle better.
: I am (like others to remain nameless) reading from an old PAP because I'm
too
: lazy to get up and retrieve a newer form, but I don't believe the wordage
has
: changed.
Trey
aka Nameless
caro...@my-deja.com
with interpretation, the value of the customer and the knowledge and
reputation of the agent. I have seen some adjusters refuse all reason
and others who will bend over backwards to be fair.
I think this is the type of claim that could be open to negotiation and
would be interesting to pursue with an adjuster. If one could get hold
of the adjuster about 3:30 pm on a Friday afternoon, if one were
patient and knowledgeable, persistent and soft-spoken, one just might
obtain a favorable determination. This was how I was once able to
pursuade an adjuster for the other party to accept 100% responsibility
for a collision loss where there was no physical contact between the
vehicles.
In article <01bea7bc$e8f96020$0a01a8c0@umktgghc>,
"CoverMe" <trey...@tigger.panamacity.com> wrote:
> Adam gave us this scenario:
>
> : While driving down the highway this weekend I encountered some
> : construction...when I hit a pothole somehow my hood opened causing
> : damage to the hood and windshield. Since this wasn't a collision
and I
> : don't have collision on the car, I was wondering, would this be
covered
> : under the comprehensive component of my auto insurance?
>
--
Carolfair
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
SGuacamole
>contract of adhesion.
But is a deer still a deer without life? Who'd have ever thought insurance
claims need a philosophy degree.
L. E. Wood
obvious. A rose is a rose is a rose. Dead or alive, an animal is an animal.
Who here is qualified to say if the poor deer wasn't clinging to the last
vestiges of life?
Comp it is.
Holman4ins
>But is a deer still a deer without life? Who'd have ever thought insurance
>claims need a philosophy degree.
LOL Guac, good one. While streamfishing once I stepped into a deer that looked
just like guacamole
Rick