Comprehensive vs Collision Insurance

[sheltie]

I recently incurred severe wind damage to the rook of my 2004 Itasca Suncruiser while on the road.  To make a longer story shorter, I was hit by a rogue wind blast to the passenger side of the MH and it ripped the rear side of the roof for a distance of about 25 linear feet and also three major rips toward the center of the roof, ranging from about 1' to 3'.

The insurance company decided that it appeared that the damage was initiated by an impact of something which then started the tearing process.  As a result, they are replacing my roof under the collision part of my insurance.

What is the difference to me whether they replace it under collision or comprehensive?  I'm almost positive that there was no impact, just that the wind found a weak spot and damage occurred from there.  Since they are replacing the entire roof, for which I'm grateful, does it make any difference under which part of the insurance pays for it?  Would one have more of a negative impact on my future insurance rates than the other?

 

[Oscar Mike]

I'm no insurance guy, but I'd check one deductible against the other...other than that a claim is a claim.

 

[mike and pat]

The difference (if the deductables are the same) is that the collision claim can increase your rates and the Comprehensive claim usually will not. I would push the issue and have them show that it was initiated from an impact and not just a really strong wind. If it just their opinion and no actual proof don't let them get away with it. Comprehesiove claim is always the best. The increase in premium could be substantial. And yes I do work in the insurance business.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

If there is a difference (and there may not be), it will be in the fine print of your policy and the general administrative policies of your insurer. In other words, yours may be different than someone else's with a different insurer or even the same insurer in a different state. The best I can suggest is to ask many detailed questions of your agent or the company rep. A possible example: a collision claim might be a strike against you in terms of future rates or renewal options, since it implies YOU struck something while in motion, whereas comprehensive implies you had no control over the cause. Today it is easy to explain that was not the case, but when a computer re-assesses you at renewal time, it only sees that you had a collision claim and collision claims are typically your fault.

Whatever answers they give to your questions, take notes about what was said, the name of the rep who said it, and date/time. That's just in case you need to refer back to it in the future.

Addendum: it's a fairly easy conclusion them to reach. Since you were moving at the time, it was a "collision". If you were standing still, it would not generally be collision unless struck by a hit & run driver. You need to make them see the difference.

 

[earthangel]

With geico, they just told me that collision was another vehicle, whereas comprehensive was an act of nature (hail, tree limb, being hit by a bird) & also hitting a pot hole, or phone pole... anything that's not a vehicle.... then they have mechanical insurance... (which I should have had....but didn't!)

So unless you side swiped another RV or semi... it seems like it has to fall under comprehensive.

But then, you might want to read your policy before you bug them... my 'physical damage coverage' has an exclusion - 'no coverage for loss caused by ... wear and tear...'  they might consider a weak part of your roof wear and tear...  ?