10 ms·
My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out
by brigade 5y ago
My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out that it doesn’t unless it never actually touched the road.
And either no one told him that it has to be a collision claim, or he just decided not to bother with a $700 collision claim after he got an independent estimate (and complain to the author that debris ought to be covered by comprehensive instead of being treated the same as you hitting a wall.)
- kube-system 5y agoThis is exactly it. The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record.
- a1369209993 5y ago> The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record. Pedantically[0], he doesn't want a $16,000 no-fault claim misclassified as at-fault on his record. See: > > obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive 0: The record entry would be the same (eg "road debris, at-fault") either way.
- kube-system 5y agoNot sure where that quote is from, but whoever said it is confused. If you hit an object in the road, that is normally (in the US) classified as a collision incident. The only time that comprehensive would cover a claim like this (in the US) is if the object was a projectile, or an animal. I’m guessing they are thinking about the common scenario where a truck kicks up a rock and it hits your windshield… and they are falsely assuming this is normally a comprehensive claim because it is “road debris”, when the real reason it is covered that way is because it is a projectile.