I'd push back a bit—can't hurt to question their logic, right?
Yeah, insurance definitions can be pretty vague sometimes. I mean, calling hail damage "cosmetic" feels off when it clearly affects resale value. I'd definitely question their reasoning a bit—doesn't hurt to ask them to clarify exactly how they decide these things...
I mean, calling hail damage "cosmetic" feels off when it clearly affects resale value. I'd definitely question their reasoning a bit—doesn't hurt to ask them to clarify exactly how they decide th...
Yeah, agreed—it's worth pushing back a little. Insurance companies sometimes label hail damage as "cosmetic" to limit payouts, but dents and paint chips can lead to rust or corrosion down the line... definitely more than just looks.
Had something similar happen a few years back—insurance said hail dents were "just cosmetic," but when I went to sell, buyers kept pointing them out and knocking down the price. Definitely worth pushing back gently...sometimes they'll reconsider if you explain your situation clearly.
Good points, but honestly, insurance companies usually stick pretty firmly to their definitions of "cosmetic" vs. structural damage. A few years back, my car got peppered with hail dents too. I tried pushing back, explained resale concerns clearly, even showed them quotes from potential buyers knocking the price down...no luck. Ended up just biting the bullet and paying out-of-pocket for paintless dent repair. Sometimes it's less hassle to fix it yourself rather than fighting with insurance over semantics.
Yeah, hail claims can be tricky...insurance companies do stick to their definitions pretty closely. But sometimes it depends on the adjuster or even the company itself. I've seen similar cases go both ways—frustrating, I know. Glad you got yours sorted eventually, even if it was out-of-pocket.
