3 ms·
I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “
by sfj 6y ago
I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “There was a collision. When your motorcycle fell over it collided with the ground.”
- kuzimoto 6y agoWhat does it cover? Isn't any sort of damage potentially a collision?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 6y agoThat's BS, damage due to wind when nobody was occupying the vehicle is clearly an act of god and in no way was due to your control of the vehicle.
- Nextgrid 6y agoWould there be any recourse, possibly in court? I can't imagine that response passing muster in court, because as another commenter pointed out, all damage would involve some kind of collision between two objects which means that if we accept their response then the policy would be worthless because it wouldn't be able to cover anything. It's implied (in the context of motor vehicle insurance) that "collision" in their case means collision between two vehicles but they're now trying to be pedantic about it when it's in their favor.