Insurance Claim questions

Yup... and with someone invested in misunderstanding it's not worth my time anymore. But you do you and I'm sure you'll be just fine.

 

Nah I’m not gonna let you get away with that one. This isn’t a misunderstanding, you’re just wrong. You wanted me to believe that my claim could be covered under comprehensive, when it very clearly is the result of another vehicle scraping by the front right quarter. Horizontal paint transfer doesn’t lie. Big difference between a tail light knocked out and the very clear evidence another vehicle was involved. Then you wanted me and anyone reading this thread to believe that an insurance adjuster would actually fudge the facts in order to cover a collision claim under comp, and when the question was posed why that would even be advantageous you decided that you were being misunderstood. The only word that starts with the same three letters that could describe your posts is misinformation.

So in summary, you make stuff up and then get a little defensive when confronted about it. Just what people are looking for in a forum.

 

I'm guessing you are 35/45 and have owned no more than six daily drivers. You've never worked in the automotive industry, and you've probably made no more than one other claim. You've never bought a car from an insurance auction and repaired it, or sold insurance. You've probably had less than three insurance carriers.

Could I be wrong? Sure. I could be wrong about anything. But I can also admit that I don't know everything based on what limited (or not) experience I have. So again, you do you and don't bother with thinking how things might work differently than your preconceived conclusions.

 

comp covers theft, vandalism hitting an animal, weather damage, etc.

collision cover accidents which are vehicle to vehicle and/or vehicle to person. or even vehicle to object.

 

this is a false statement as not all insurance companies do things the same way.

 

correct! this is why comprehensive in some states is called “other than collision”.

 

Mine is called "All Perils" Anything but me driving.

 

You’re incorrect on all but two counts in your amateur profiling effort, and I find it super bizarre that you think any of those data points have anything to do with being able to read my insurance policy where the difference between comp and collision coverage is very clearly described in plain English.

I’ve never bought a car at auction. I’ve also never thought that buying a car at auction provided life lessons on comp versus collision. I’ve also never sold insurance. I don’t see how selling insurance is required for me to understand my own policy.

You still haven’t explained why asking my adjuster to manipulate the facts so that I have a comp claim does me any good. (Answer: it wouldn’t).

You’ve also had an insurance professional correct several of your statements. Please be done, and please stop posting here so I don’t have to go ask a mod to come in and clean up the thread by removing all the garbage that’s now littering it. None of this has anything to do with the two questions I posed in the original post, one of which has already been clearly answered.

 

dis·cre·tion
/dəˈskreSHən/

noun

1. 1.
   the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information.
   "she knew she could rely on his discretion"
   
   
2. 2.
   the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

 

So my non-professional understanding of collision is that it covers when I am actually driving the vehicle. If the vehicle is just sitting there and something happens to it, it doesn't necessarily matter if someone else collided with it, it's not a collision on my policy. The other driver, yes.

What say you pros? I suspect the answer is that it depends on the state and policy.

 

trying to convince a claims adjuster to file a fraudulent will only result in a bad outcome for all parties involved.

this is illegal.

 

collision applies when there is vehicle to vehicle contact, vehicle to person or vehicle to object. this is regardless if you’re behind the wheel.

if your vehicle is parked on the street and someone hits it, it’s a collision. if your vehicle rolls down a hill and hits something, it’s a collision.

 

I’d have to read your policy to know, but as I understand it “all perils” combines the elements of comp and collision.

 

Thank you. So in that first scenario, it would be a not-at-fault. Second scenario, at-fault (forgot to set the dang parking brake). First would likely not affect my rates directly but might; second, probably would.

What would be interesting is if we had a TW actuary that actually works on setting insurance rates explain what factors go into rate increases. With extreme weather events becoming more common, there are more claims, so it just makes sense that the cost would go up in areas where there are more of these claims. Cost of repairs is certainly another factor.

 

yes you have the fault correct. however even not at fault accidents can still effect your premium.

an actuary wouldn’t be the best person to ask. your best resource is probably an underwriter such as myself. actuaries crunch the numbers behind the scenes and underwriting applies that to policies, keeping things in accordance to our policy contracts.

 

yup. a peril is just a certain type of risk. your actual coverages determine what would pay out in the event of that risk.

 

LOL at this type of reply from a guy who has been 100% incorrect in several replies in this thread alone. Quit while you're behind.