Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
S#%@ happens. You aren't the first one and won't be the last. In fact, cars have low speed scrapes with a certain regularity on dealer lots.
I know of a customer at a Cadillac dealership which provides loaners who totaled two Escalades on loan to him from the dealership while his own Escalade was in from an accident and ended up being totalled as well. They cut him off from loaners after he totaled two of theirs on top of his.
Had the OP's wife hit it when it was road kill, it would be considered a "collision loss" due to striking or colliding with an inanimate object. That could have had a different, um, impact, on the situation. Just what I recall from my days in insurance.
Incorrect. Hitting an animal alive or dead is considered a comp loss.
Incorrect. Hitting an animal alive or dead is considered a comp loss.
What do you mean?
It went under collision for mine when a pipe was thrown up at my car from another car that hit it when it fell of a truck.
Because the car was moving/I was driving.
How does the animal go under comprehensive if she was driving when it happened?
What do you mean?
It went under collision for mine when a pipe was thrown up at my car from another car that hit it when it fell of a truck.
Because the car was moving/I was driving.
How does the animal go under comprehensive if she was driving when it happened?
It doesn't matter if the animal is dead or alive. It still falls under comprehensive.
What do you mean?
It went under collision for mine when a pipe was thrown up at my car from another car that hit it when it fell of a truck.
Because the car was moving/I was driving.
How does the animal go under comprehensive if she was driving when it happened?
Sounds like your adjuster screwed you. That should have been a comp claim was well. "Collision with a moving object" not at fault. If you hit a stationary object in the road, that is collision at fault. But ANY collision with ANY type of animal, or having a moving object strike your car is a comp claim.
Sounds like your adjuster screwed you. That should have been a comp claim was well. "Collision with a moving object" not at fault. If you hit a stationary object in the road, that is collision at fault. But ANY collision with ANY type of animal, or having a moving object strike your car is a comp claim.
Ah, for me it is gray, then. Bc the pipe was kicked back towards me and then I hit it.
Speaking as an insurance adjuster it's very black and white. You were hit by a moving object while driving. That's a comp claim. If the object was stationary in the road when you hit it, it's collision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
