Notifications
Clear all

just saw a story about a guy in Kansas whose car got totaled by hail, and turns out his insurance didn't cover it.

1,055 Posts
900 Users
0 Reactions
48.3 K Views
mjones90
Posts: 17
(@mjones90)
Eminent Member
Joined:

I learned the hard way about animal collisions a couple years ago. Hit a deer on a back road—pretty scary stuff, but thankfully everyone was fine except my front bumper. Called my agent feeling pretty confident, only to hear that I didn't have comprehensive coverage. Apparently that's what covers animal encounters... who knew? Now I double-check everything because "full coverage" doesn't always mean what you think it means. Insurance companies sure have creative definitions sometimes.


Reply
genealogist92
Posts: 29
(@genealogist92)
Eminent Member
Joined:

Had a similar wake-up call myself during my first year driving. Got caught in a nasty hailstorm—thought I was covered since my parents always talked about having "full coverage." Turns out, comprehensive wasn't included, and I ended up paying out of pocket for dents all over my hood and roof. Definitely learned to read the fine print after that... Insurance terms can be surprisingly tricky, even when you think you've got it all figured out. Glad your deer encounter wasn't worse, though!


Reply
naturalist91
Posts: 18
(@naturalist91)
Active Member
Joined:

Interesting point about the fine print—insurance terminology can indeed be confusing. But I'm curious, was it really a matter of tricky wording, or perhaps assumptions made based on hearing "full coverage"? In my experience, comprehensive coverage is usually pretty clearly outlined in most policies. Maybe it's less about reading the fine print and more about asking the right questions upfront. Either way, glad you got through it relatively unscathed...hail damage can be surprisingly expensive.


Reply
mhill69
Posts: 11
(@mhill69)
Active Member
Joined:

"Maybe it's less about reading the fine print and more about asking the right questions upfront."

Totally agree with this. As someone who's had my share of close calls (and premiums to match...), I've learned never to assume coverage. "Full coverage" can be misleading—always double-check specifics, especially for weather events like hail.


Reply
film_nala
Posts: 22
(@film_nala)
Eminent Member
Joined:

That's a good point about "full coverage" being misleading. I've noticed a lot of people assume comprehensive coverage automatically includes weather-related damage, but that's not always the case. A few years back, I almost learned this the hard way when a tree branch fell on my car during a storm. Thankfully, I'd specifically asked about storm damage when setting up my policy, so I was covered—but it easily could've gone the other way.

It's definitely worth taking the extra time to clarify exactly what's included and what's not. Insurance companies often have different definitions or exclusions depending on your location and local weather risks. For instance, hail coverage might be standard in one state but optional in another. Better to ask upfront and know exactly what you're paying for than to find out after the fact...


Reply
Page 19 / 211
Share:
Scroll to Top