- Been there, felt that pain. Insurance after a hailstorm is like spinning a wheel—sometimes you hit the jackpot, sometimes you get “try again.”
- Had my windshield look like a spiderweb once and the adjuster acted like I was trying to scam them for a new car.
- Honestly, it’s wild how much it depends on who picks up your file. Hang in there. The system’s weird, but you’re not alone in the struggle.
- At least you didn’t have to send in a DNA sample... yet.
Honestly, it’s wild how many people don’t realize hail damage is only covered if you’ve got comprehensive on your policy. It’s not always spelled out super clearly, either—sometimes folks just assume “full coverage” means everything. Out of curiosity, has anyone here actually read through their policy line by line? I know it’s dry, but sometimes the devil’s in the details... and those details can make or break a claim.
I’ve skimmed my policy but honestly, it’s a slog. I always wonder—do people actually call their agent to clarify stuff like this, or just hope for the best? I feel like “full coverage” is such a misleading term... anyone ever get caught out by that?
“Full coverage” is definitely one of those terms that sounds reassuring but doesn’t really mean much until you dig in. I’ve actually called my agent a few times—especially after hearing stories like the hail thing—just to be sure. Turns out, even with “full coverage,” if you don’t have comprehensive, stuff like hail or vandalism isn’t covered. It’s wild how easy it is to miss that detail. Ever notice how the paperwork never just says it plainly?
Title: Hail Damage and "Full Coverage"—Been There, Learned the Hard Way
- Been in that boat myself. Years back, my '68 Camaro got caught in a freak hailstorm while parked outside a buddy’s garage. I figured “full coverage” meant I was good. Turns out, nope—my policy only had liability and collision. No comprehensive, so no payout for the dents and broken glass.
- “Full coverage” is such a slippery term. It sounds like you’re protected from everything, but really it’s just insurance-speak for “you have more than just liability.” The details are buried in the fine print.
- I’ve noticed most agents don’t explain this unless you ask directly. They’ll say you’ve got “full,” but unless you spell out stuff like hail or vandalism, you might be missing key pieces.
- The paperwork is a mess, too. My renewal docs never actually list out what *isn’t* covered—you have to go hunting for exclusions. And if you’re not reading every page, it’s easy to assume you’re covered for stuff like weather damage.
- After my Camaro incident, I started double-checking all my policies. Now I keep comprehensive on anything I care about, even my old daily driver. Costs a bit more, but after seeing what hail can do (and knowing how rare some classic parts are), it feels worth it.
- I do wish insurance companies would just use plain language. Would save a lot of headaches and angry phone calls when something weird happens.
Funny thing is, a neighbor with a newer Mustang had the same hail hit him—but he’d added comprehensive after his wife insisted on it. His car was fixed up in no time; mine sat looking like a golf ball for months until I could afford the repairs.
Anyway, lesson learned... “Full coverage” isn’t always as full as it sounds. Worth digging into those details before Mother Nature decides to throw you a curveball.
