Do I hear the sound of Mexicans playing trumpets?
Last edited:
One accident, two deductibles?
- Thread starter Oro_O
- Start date
- Status
The deer incident is a "comprehensive" loss, and covered under that part of the policy with the associated deductible. Deer collisions are treated much the same as tree branches falling on a car or a rock hitting the windshield: not a lot the driver can do to avoid.
The rear end incident is either covered as a " collision" or "uninsured motorist" loss with those deductibles. If the other driver is at fault, his carrier should pay the total amount with no deductible for your partner.
Now, if you partner had hit a car instead of a deer, that part would be a collision loss too and only one deductible would apply. Ironic, no?
The rear end incident is either covered as a " collision" or "uninsured motorist" loss with those deductibles. If the other driver is at fault, his carrier should pay the total amount with no deductible for your partner.
Now, if you partner had hit a car instead of a deer, that part would be a collision loss too and only one deductible would apply. Ironic, no?
I take collision reports for a living , it's one incident (continuous event).
absolutely, once is a comprehensive claim, the other collision.
Originally Posted By: R2d2
I take collision reports for a living , it's one incident (continuous event).
each state is regulated differently, you should know this.
I take collision reports for a living , it's one incident (continuous event).
each state is regulated differently, you should know this.
Originally Posted By: Or
They say this is two incidents and two deductibles. Does that sound right? It doesn't pass the "smell" test, but I'm no lawyer.
Of course, it doesn't pass the smell test. But, it is SOP for insurance companies. Those are two separate collisions, in their view, and they will look for two separate deductibles. If it were up here (where I'm more familiar with the law and the procedures), the second deductible could be recovered if the other driver and/or vehicle were identified and insurance went after them for the deductible. Of course, if that other driver/vehicle were unlicensed/uninsured, your partner would still be asked to pay the second deductible, were this in Saskatchewan. That doesn't mean, however, that the insurer is necessarily right, especially if it were dealt with in a court.
But, as was already suggested, one needs to check the policy in question. Just because an insurance company asks for something doesn't make it correct, or fitting in with the policy.
They say this is two incidents and two deductibles. Does that sound right? It doesn't pass the "smell" test, but I'm no lawyer.
Of course, it doesn't pass the smell test. But, it is SOP for insurance companies. Those are two separate collisions, in their view, and they will look for two separate deductibles. If it were up here (where I'm more familiar with the law and the procedures), the second deductible could be recovered if the other driver and/or vehicle were identified and insurance went after them for the deductible. Of course, if that other driver/vehicle were unlicensed/uninsured, your partner would still be asked to pay the second deductible, were this in Saskatchewan. That doesn't mean, however, that the insurer is necessarily right, especially if it were dealt with in a court.
But, as was already suggested, one needs to check the policy in question. Just because an insurance company asks for something doesn't make it correct, or fitting in with the policy.
That's total shenanigans. That's one claim. It would be two claims if you hit a deer and then the tow truck drpped your car in a ditch. It would be two claims if you hit a deer, pulled onto the shoulder, and then another driver came along and hit you. This is clearly one claim. Any lawyer or kindergartener could tell you that. Time to find a reputable carrier (hint: TV commercials = disqualified!)
Are you sure it wasn't a couple of other deer that rammed the back of your car while chasing the first one?
Generally it would be two if it was a car instead of a deer as well, assuming the car rear ended you after you hit the car (deer). The cause of the rear end collision is failure of the following car to maintain a safe distance, the fact that the car behind rear ended you is prima facia evidence that it wasn't maintaining a safe following distance. The cause of the rear end collision is failure of the following vehicle to maintain a safe distance, and has nothing what so ever to do with the deer (car).
If the car behind rear ended you and pushed you into a car (deer) in front of you, that would one incident.
Right now you have a comprehensive loss and an uninsured motorist loss, both of which are generally non-surchargeable, I'd be careful about arguing to make it otherwise.
Generally.
But this is another one of those things that you ought to be talking to someone besides an internet message board about.
If the car behind rear ended you and pushed you into a car (deer) in front of you, that would one incident.
Right now you have a comprehensive loss and an uninsured motorist loss, both of which are generally non-surchargeable, I'd be careful about arguing to make it otherwise.
Generally.
But this is another one of those things that you ought to be talking to someone besides an internet message board about.
Oh deer! What an unfortunate accident.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Yes, keep us updated. And, most of all, be patient; this may not be quick.
Insurance companies don't benefit from being speedy.
Update is they in fact made it two. Very annoyed because I always use a reputable insurer vs. simply the lowest. This was PEMCO and I didn't experct this hassle. Going to research other carriers and switch. Top of my list is AMICA as I have heard good things about them.
Oh, and I did talk to a lawyer who advised me that there was no governing state law or insurance regulation that dictated how an insurer had to act; it was up to the individual policy language and how they felt like interpreting it. And in this case, this was the first claim on the policy ever (six years?), not like a frequent event. So, goodbye PEMCO. Very disappointed vs. what they seem to promise.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Or
Update is they in fact made it two. Very annoyed because I always use a reputable insurer vs. simply the lowest. This was PEMCO and I didn't experct this hassle. Going to research other carriers and switch. Top of my list is AMICA as I have heard good things about them.
Well if they've decided it is two accidents, the first one should be the deer, and the second one should be getting rear ended. The rear end accident should have no deductible since it's a hit and run uninsured motorist claim. The deer, that's under whatever your Comprehensive deductible is. Best of luck.
You may want to consider speaking with an attorney about it, no guarantees on that but it might grant some perspective.
Update is they in fact made it two. Very annoyed because I always use a reputable insurer vs. simply the lowest. This was PEMCO and I didn't experct this hassle. Going to research other carriers and switch. Top of my list is AMICA as I have heard good things about them.
Well if they've decided it is two accidents, the first one should be the deer, and the second one should be getting rear ended. The rear end accident should have no deductible since it's a hit and run uninsured motorist claim. The deer, that's under whatever your Comprehensive deductible is. Best of luck.
You may want to consider speaking with an attorney about it, no guarantees on that but it might grant some perspective.
I guess that depends upon policies. As I mentioned, in this jurisdiction, you're a victim of hit and run, you pay the deductible, unless the offender gets caught and billed somehow, either through his insurance or a restitution order after a conviction.
- Status
