3 ms·

It sounds like you were just cheap, didn't want to purchase comprehensive coverage, then that came back to bite you. This sucks, but is hardly a scam. Even wors

by extr 5y ago

It sounds like you were just cheap, didn't want to purchase comprehensive coverage, then that came back to bite you. This sucks, but is hardly a scam. Even worse, it sounds like you even understood what comprehensive coverage does (cover 1st party physical damage regardless of situation), and consciously chose not to buy it, assuming that anything that would possibly happen to the vehicle would be someone else's fault. Terrible assumption on a cross country road trip. You would have been equally fucked if you hit a deer, spun out in a rain storm and hit a median, popped a tire and ran into a ditch, etc.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
peregren 5y ago
If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.
- gruez 5y ago
  > If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.
- extr 5y ago
  It does suck that in OP's case they caught the wrong end of this. But again, that's why you carry your own insurance with your own coverage. You're not just paying for the literal indemnification of auto damages, you're paying for the cost of litigating and proving facts in court in various hypothetical scenarios. As the other poster said, cops don't determine fault. You have to go court for that. As somewhat of an aside, since I think a lot of people don't realize this: Most of the time attempting to allocate blame in auto accidents is a massive waste of resources and time. Insurance companies usually just settle with each other before even getting to court unless the claim involves big $. Even if you were 0% at fault, your insurance company is still incurring some cost to process the claim. Their assessment of your risk is still going up (as it should). They're still going to up your premium. The whole fault concept is just not helpful to the actual functioning of the industry, most of the time. In some states they just got rid of fault altogether, for exactly this reason. > And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk. Yeah, a risk that in this case, did not pay off. So why is this guy whining all over this thread that he got "scammed" when he knew it was a risk?

by extr 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

peregren 5y ago

If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.

gruez 5y ago
> If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.
extr 5y ago
It does suck that in OP's case they caught the wrong end of this. But again, that's why you carry your own insurance with your own coverage. You're not just paying for the literal indemnification of auto damages, you're paying for the cost of litigating and proving facts in court in various hypothetical scenarios. As the other poster said, cops don't determine fault. You have to go court for that. As somewhat of an aside, since I think a lot of people don't realize this: Most of the time attempting to allocate blame in auto accidents is a massive waste of resources and time. Insurance companies usually just settle with each other before even getting to court unless the claim involves big $. Even if you were 0% at fault, your insurance company is still incurring some cost to process the claim. Their assessment of your risk is still going up (as it should). They're still going to up your premium. The whole fault concept is just not helpful to the actual functioning of the industry, most of the time. In some states they just got rid of fault altogether, for exactly this reason. > And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk. Yeah, a risk that in this case, did not pay off. So why is this guy whining all over this thread that he got "scammed" when he knew it was a risk?