Is Hitting An Animal Collision Or Comprehensive

Something that gives me great consternation is the perpetuation of insurance myths. One such myth is that striking a deer in a motor vehicle is ONLY covered if you have comprehensive coverage on your auto policy. I've seen or heard this generalization from industry organizations, insurers, regulators, media, and others. To illustrate, merely Google "is hitting a deer standoff or comprehensive" or "automobile hits deer" to encounter what I hateful. Here is the nigh recent regulatory "consumer warning" that prompted this postal service by perpetuating this myth:

Louisiana Department of Insurance Consumer Alert: Steer Clear of Deer this Fall

They are all wrong. The correct answer is "It depends." Some policies comprehend striking a deer as a collision IF you lot have only collision (not comprehensive) coverage while others specifically exclude it. Every bit always, yous MUST read the policy and not make absolute generalizations about coverage. For example, one insurer's personal auto policy says:

"Collision" means the impact with an object and includes upset of a vehicle. Loss caused by the following is covered nether Comprehensive Coverage and is not considered a "collision": … contact with a bird or animal.

That pretty clearly states that contact with a deer is Not considered a collision under their policy. Dissimilarity that with what Insurance Services Office (ISO) "standard" auto policies say. ISO has 2 primary auto policies, the CA 00 01 – Business Car Policy (BAP) and the PP 00 01 – Personal Motorcar Policy (PAP). The ISO BAP is clear:

If you comport Comprehensive Coverage for the damaged covered "auto", we will pay for the following nether Comprehensive Coverage: … "Loss" caused by hitting a bird or beast….

ISO BAP concrete damage coverage is usually written with standoff coverage so a choice of either Comprehensive coverage or Specified Causes of Loss coverage. The language above is clear…hitting a deer is covered "IF" yous have comprehensive coverage, not "simply IF" you take comprehensive coverage. What if you accept collision and Specified Causes of Loss. Well, you won't observe contact with deer listed under the Specified Causes of Loss, but isn't striking a deer a standoff otherwise? The term "collision" is not divers in the policy, so courts expect to mutual usage, oft in the form of dictionary definitions. Once again, Google "collision definition" or "collision defined" and you'll discover just how broad this term is and it certainly includes contact between any forms of matter.

So, if y'all have collision coverage, contact with a deer would be a collision. However, in the ISO BAP, if you too accept comprehensive coverage, then the contact is considered a comprehensive claim. That makes sense in that most deer collisions, unlike collisions with stationary objects, don't involve operator negligence. As a consequence, comprehensive deductibles are ofttimes less than collision deductibles and often practice non involve any kind of castigating "points" premium charges.

The ISO PAP linguistic communication is similar to their BAP language merely omits the qualifying word "if." Why? I can only surmise. For i matter, collision coverage is rarely, if ever, written without comprehensive coverage, unlike the ISO BAP where Specified Causes of Loss may exist written in lieu of comprehensive coverage. As a result, the need for qualifying linguistic communication in the PAP may be considered less critical. Or perhaps ISO's PAP and BAP people haven't discussed this fifty-fifty though the exposure to loss is identical.

And so, the morals to this story are twofold: (1) don't believe everything you read no matter the source, and (2) READ THE POLICY and stop relying on generalizations about coverage. How many covered deer claims have been denied because of the perpetuation of this myth? If policy language is ambiguous clarify it and I believe that description should be that contact with a deer IS a collision…why should a policy embrace an inattentive driver running off the road and hitting a telephone pole yet non cover damage caused past a deer darting from the side of the road at midnight? Makes no sense.

The post-obit two tabs change content below.

Bio
Latest Posts

I of the premier insurance educators in America on form, coverage, and technical issues; Founder and director of the Large "I" Virtual University; Retired Assoc. VP of Education and Research from Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America. Reprint Request Information

Source: https://insurancecommentary.com/myth-only-comprehensive-coverage-covers-hitting-a-deer/

Posted by: merrymanblene1972.blogspot.com