Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2013, 04:53 PM
 
Location: N/A
846 posts, read 1,881,144 times
Reputation: 937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
Totally WRONG!

A parked vehicle, not in operation, is not covered by collision coverage, but primarily by the owner's "comprehensive" coverage. It is subject to the deductible selected by the insured's policy. In this case, the OP says $500 deductible. If the damage is as minor as the OP states, it's most likely not worth filing the claim on their policy.

The "collision" coverage that could be in force here would be the operator that hit the OP's car, if they had insurance. With a typical deductible, the claim would most likely be paid out of pocket. But with such minor damage, there's an area of plausible ignorance that they damaged another vehicle.

With the police not pursuing the uninsured motorist, it leaves the OP very little leverage to get any money from the hit and run driver ... consider that there's two charges here (as posted by others): the "hit and run" and the lack of insurance. Absent being able to prove that the other driver knew they'd caused the minor damage and failed to stop, the only claim left is the insurance issue ... which doesn't seem to be serious enough in this jurisdiction to get motor vehicle or police enforcement.

As posted above, my bet is that this is one of those situations where the OP will get stuck with the repairs .... that's the way an imperfect legal & insurance situation works in the real world of minor damages. I've had more serious damage from a car door opened into my car door by an inconsiderate person ... and it was not worth pursuing any claims from a deadbeat who didn't have insurance or any money to go after.
Please pull out your auto policy and read what Collision covers and what Comprehensive covers before you come in here with really bad answers. If the other driver had insurance, the LIABILITY portion of that policy would make the claim payment for the damage and the rental car. Because the other driver is LIABLE, that what gives the insurance company grounds for suit to recover their payments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:12 PM
 
11,555 posts, read 53,177,205 times
Reputation: 16349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me007gold View Post
No, You're wrong. Its covered under collision, because something collided with the vehicle. Comp covers things like act of 'god' (weather, animals, and 'collision' with a moving object)

If the responsible party(the one that hit the ops car) had insurance the damages would get paid out of his property damage liability coverage. Collision/Comp only cover damage to YOUR vehicle, not the other party'.
My insurance agent explains it this way:

"A simple way to remember comprehensive and collision coverage is that comprehensive protects you in situations that don't involve colliding with a nonliving object while collision protects you when you collide with another vehicle or object." (emphasis mine)

The OP wasn't operating the vehicle at the time of impact, hence did not collide with another vehicle or object. The owner's comprehensive covers those acts of 'god' ... like a tree falling on the car and when it is not in operation but hit by another vehicle ... at least according to my policy in my state.

I've processed insurance claims with insurance adjusters for cars that were brought into my shop for repairs from these situations; typically an unknown other driver hit-and-run caused damage to a parked vehicle. Many times these were from somebody "touch bumper" parking where they touched the other parked car when exiting the parking space, and backed up into the other car ... but didn't necessarily realize that their car/truck bumper didn't touch the other bumper but collided with a light or fender structure, causing signficant damage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 05:20 PM
 
Location: N/A
846 posts, read 1,881,144 times
Reputation: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
My insurance agent explains it this way:

"A simple way to remember comprehensive and collision coverage is that comprehensive protects you in situations that don't involve colliding with a nonliving object while collision protects you when you collide with another vehicle or object." (emphasis mine)

The OP wasn't operating the vehicle at the time of impact, hence did not collide with another vehicle or object. The owner's comprehensive covers those acts of 'god' ... like a tree falling on the car and when it is not in operation but hit by another vehicle ... at least according to my policy in my state.

I've processed insurance claims with insurance adjusters for cars that were brought into my shop for repairs from these situations; typically an unknown other driver hit-and-run caused damage to a parked vehicle. Many times these were from somebody "touch bumper" parking where they touched the other parked car when exiting the parking space, and backed up into the other car ... but didn't necessarily realize that their car/truck bumper didn't touch the other bumper but collided with a light or fender structure, causing signficant damage.
Please read your auto policy. Collision is a named peril in your standard auto policy.

Collision damage is collision damage. When a car hits a car...collision damage. Doesn't matter if the insured was in the car or not (there could be a coverage question if a non-named person was driving the vehicle, or if it was in the care, custody, and control of another person. Then we have to determine whose insurance was primary, secondary, etc.)

Last edited by midwestlaxer; 08-26-2013 at 05:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2013, 09:20 PM
 
Location: The Old Dominion
774 posts, read 1,693,745 times
Reputation: 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainGuy74 View Post
What makes you think they would be deported? Are you assuming they are Mexican because they don't have insurance?

I was once involved in an accident with someone that had no insurance and he was a good old born and raised in the USA white boy. What do ya think about that?
If you can even hear me from way up there on your high horse, please tell me who said anything about Mexicans?

Once you're finished with that, let us know why you say I think they would be deported, when my post clearly said they would NOT be deported.

The chief problem about your arguing with a straw man is that the straw man appears to be winning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top