Haha, dodging ducks sounds exactly like something I'd end up doing. Had a similar thing happen on a road trip through Oregon—had to brake suddenly for a deer that just stood there staring at me like I was the problem. Algorithms definitely don't account for wildlife attitude issues... Glad your insurance headache finally got sorted though, it's always nice when someone actually listens and gets it right.
"Algorithms definitely don't account for wildlife attitude issues..."
Haha, seriously. Makes me wonder—do insurance companies even factor wildlife encounters into their risk calculations, or is it just lumped under general collision? Seems like animals deserve their own category by now...
"Seems like animals deserve their own category by now..."
Interesting thought, but I'm not sure insurers would see it that way. From what I've gathered over the years, insurance companies typically lump wildlife incidents under general collision coverage because, from their perspective, it's still essentially a collision event—just with a different kind of obstacle. I remember a friend who restored a beautiful '67 Mustang only to have a deer jump out on him during a weekend drive. The insurance treated it exactly like any other collision claim, no special considerations for wildlife involved.
Creating a separate category might complicate things more than simplify them, especially since wildlife encounters vary so much by region and season. Insurers probably prefer keeping their risk models streamlined rather than adding another layer of complexity. Still, it's an intriguing idea—maybe someday they'll reconsider if wildlife incidents become frequent enough to warrant special attention...
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but wildlife collisions actually fall under comprehensive coverage rather than collision in most cases. At least that's how my insurer explained it when I hit a raccoon last year. They said animal incidents don't count against your driving record the same way regular collisions do, which was a relief. Still, I doubt insurers would ever separate animals into their own category—probably too niche and complicated for them to bother with...
That's interesting, but honestly, I think insurers could benefit from separating animal incidents into their own category. Sure, it might seem niche at first glance, but think about how common wildlife collisions actually are—especially in rural or suburban areas. I commute daily through a wooded stretch, and I've had more close calls with deer and raccoons than I'd like to admit. Having a dedicated category could help insurers better track these incidents and maybe even offer targeted advice or incentives for drivers who frequently travel through wildlife-heavy zones.
Plus, from an analytical standpoint, clearer categorization could lead to more accurate risk assessments and pricing. Right now, lumping animal collisions under comprehensive coverage feels a bit arbitrary. It doesn't reflect the driver's skill or habits as much as regular collisions do. Separating them out might actually simplify things in the long run by providing clearer data points for insurers to work with. Just my two cents though...
