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.

170 Posts
164 Users
0 Reactions
644 Views
mleaf44
Posts: 5
(@mleaf44)
Active Member
Joined:

Yeah, insurance jargon can definitely feel like a maze sometimes. But honestly, it's not really meant to trick anyone—it's just that most folks don't dive into the details until something actually happens. Comprehensive coverage is basically your "everything else" bucket: hail, theft, vandalism, deer jumping outta nowhere... you name it. Collision is strictly for when you hit something (or someone hits you).

I get why it's confusing though. Had a client once who swore up and down that hitting a pothole should be comprehensive because "the road attacked him," haha. Nope, still collision. And yeah, deductibles can bite you if you're not careful—lower deductible means higher premiums though, so it's always a balancing act.

Best thing to do is exactly what you're doing now: read up and ask questions before something happens. Saves headaches later on... and maybe some cash too.

Reply
Posts: 4
(@lauriej23)
Active Member
Joined:

Interesting explanation, but I still feel insurers could simplify some of this language to avoid these misunderstandings. I once had a windshield crack from a falling tree branch—thought it'd be collision since something physically hit my car, but nope, comprehensive covered it. Makes you wonder, how do they even decide where to draw the line between collision and comprehensive coverage? Seems pretty arbitrary at times...

Reply
scarter50
Posts: 7
(@scarter50)
Active Member
Joined:

Had a similar thing happen when a deer ran into my parked car—thought collision was obvious there, but nope, comprehensive again. Sometimes feels like they flip a coin to decide... Wonder if insurers ever reconsider these categories based on common confusion or customer feedback? Would probably save everyone some headaches.

Reply
architecture_charles
Posts: 4
(@architecture_charles)
New Member
Joined:

Yeah, insurers do revisit categories occasionally, but it's usually driven by claim data rather than customer confusion. Honestly, some of these distinctions seem outdated. Ever had something you thought was clearly comprehensive but ended up collision instead?

Reply
scottt63
Posts: 4
(@scottt63)
Active Member
Joined:

- Had a similar thing happen last winter—thought sliding into a snowbank counted as comprehensive (weather-related, right?), but nope, collision. 🙄
- Honestly, feels like insurers spin a wheel sometimes to decide these categories.
- Makes me wonder, has anyone ever successfully argued their way into a different coverage category after the fact? Curious if that's even possible...

Reply
Page 8 / 34
Share:
Scroll to Top