It really depends on the adjuster and, honestly, how much evidence you have. I’ve had them disagree with me before—once after a hailstorm, they tried to chalk up some older dents as “wear and tear” instead of storm damage. It’s tricky, especially with older cars where you might have previous dings or scratches mixed in with new stuff.
From what I’ve seen, there’s definitely some wiggle room, but it usually comes down to documentation and photos. If you can show “before” pictures or maintenance records, that helps a lot. But if damage overlaps—like deer hit plus snowbank—it gets murky fast. Sometimes they’ll split the claim between comprehensive and collision, but other times they’ll push back and say it all falls under one or the other.
I wish there was a more straightforward answer, but it’s rarely black and white. It pays to be persistent and keep good records, especially if your car’s seen a few winters already...
Man, you nailed it with this:
I swear, my old truck’s got more “character marks” than a used hockey puck. Every time I file a claim, it feels like I need to provide a family tree for each dent. The adjusters must think I’m running a demolition derby on weekends. But yeah, persistence and photos are your best friends. If only insurance rules were as clear as South Dakota winters are cold, right?It pays to be persistent and keep good records, especially if your car’s seen a few winters already...
I hear you on the “family tree” for dents—sometimes I feel like I need a spreadsheet just to keep track. Out of curiosity, have you ever had an adjuster question old damage versus new? I’ve had to dig up photos from months back just to prove a point... It gets tricky, especially when winter salt makes everything look worse.
Do you think it actually helps to keep a running set of photos, or does it just make things more confusing? I always wonder if adjusters even look at timestamps or just go by what looks “fresh.” Ever had them push back on your proof?
I always wonder if adjusters even look at timestamps or just go by what looks “fresh.”
Honestly, I’ve found that keeping a running set of photos is more helpful than not, especially when you’re dealing with classic cars. Adjusters can be picky, but timestamps have saved me more than once when they tried to claim damage was “pre-existing.” That said, it does get messy if you’re not organized. Have you ever had them question whether your photos were actually from the date you claimed? I’ve had one try to argue a photo’s metadata before—felt like overkill.
