"even a high deductible beats paying full price for repairs."
Yeah, that's fair, but doesn't claiming smaller stuff still bump up your premiums later? I've always wondered if it's worth it in the long run...especially with wildlife hits being so random.
Yeah, that's exactly why I usually just eat the cost on smaller stuff. Had a deer run-in last year—thankfully minor—but I figured if I claimed it, my premiums would spike even more (already paying enough as it is...). Does anyone know if wildlife claims are treated differently by insurers in Arkansas, or do they lump them in with regular collision claims?
Pretty sure wildlife hits usually fall under comprehensive rather than collision, at least that's how it was explained to me a couple years back when I had a raccoon incident. Comprehensive claims supposedly don't ding your premiums as badly, but who knows if that's still accurate or varies by insurer? Did you check with your agent directly about Arkansas specifically, or just going by general info online?
"Comprehensive claims supposedly don't ding your premiums as badly, but who knows if that's still accurate or varies by insurer?"
Yeah, that's generally true—wildlife hits usually fall under comprehensive, and they're usually less harsh on your premiums. But honestly, it does depend quite a bit on the insurer and your specific history. Had a client last year whose rates barely budged after hitting a deer, but another saw a noticeable jump. Did your agent mention anything about deductible differences between comprehensive and collision affecting your out-of-pocket costs?
Had a similar experience myself—hit a raccoon (poor little guy, RIP) and my premiums barely moved. But then my brother clipped a mailbox and his rates jumped noticeably. Same insurer, totally different outcomes. Makes me wonder if insurers secretly judge us based on what we hit... deer vs mailbox vs raccoon? Anyone else notice weird premium changes depending on the object involved in the accident?
