Question About Auto Insurance In Alberta

[macker]

For OP....read this....
http://www.insurancehotline.com/comm...ions-part-one/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

What peril under comprehensive would this fit under that is more suitable then collision or upset?

Well in general a collision implies you are operating the vehicle and collide with something. A hit and run you aren't driving (most commonly) and it's almost like vandalism. Maybe we just gave people a break (it was a number of years ago, now that I think about it!), but we definitely put these as Comprehensive claims when it was a hit and run.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by macker

Section C

Subsection 2. Collision or upset - caused by collision with another object or by upset. This is the coverage that would apply to a hit and run.

Subsection 3. Comprehensive - from any peril other than by collision with another object or by upset. Section includes loss or damage caused by misles, falling or flying objects, fire, theft, explosion, earthquake, windstorm, hail, rising water, malicious mischief, riot or civil commotion.

Deer is flying object and hit and run is non-chargeable collision.

A deer is not a "flying object", a dead deer is a collision. Technically an alive deer is a collision too.... But all companies put it as a comp claim and some have in their wordings under comprehensive as collision with an animal

Originally Posted by Slava

Well when I adjusted claims we always did these as Comprehensive claims. Where's FKA when you need him?

Depends on the company and the circumstances.... At the company I work for as an adjuster it is considered a comp claim if the vehicle is parked and there is absolutely no information of the other vehicle. Even if they know it was a blue car and that's it, it's considered a collision. Not every company does this though but I know of a few including the place I was workin at as a broker for before.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well in general a collision implies you are operating the vehicle and collide with something. A hit and run you aren't driving (most commonly) and it's almost like vandalism. Maybe we just gave people a break (it was a number of years ago, now that I think about it!), but we definitely put these as Comprehensive claims when it was a hit and run.

Were you a summer student
Collision does not specify that you need to be operating your vehicle. Also operating your vehicle goes as far as opening and closing your door when the vehicle isn't even turned on.

As for vandalism or malicious acts it wouldn't apply as comprehensive as there is no way to prove that it was intentional. There is no intent or malice and no way to prove same. Damages are the result of an accident and a collision or upset to an insured vehicle by an unidentified third party.

Vandalism or malicious act : http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

Were you a summer student
Collision does not specify that you need to be operating your vehicle. Also operating your vehicle goes as far as opening and closing your door when the vehicle isn't even turned on.

As for vandalism or malicious acts it wouldn't apply as comprehensive as there is no way to prove that it was intentional. There is no intent or malice and no way to prove same. Damages are the result of an accident and a collision or upset to an insured vehicle by an unidentified third party.

Vandalism or malicious act : http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism

No, I wasn't a summer student. I gave you a perfectly rational explanation and even said that it could be that we were giving clients a break by doing this.

Glad to see an adjuster posted here and lends some credibility to what I was saying earlier as well.

Thanks for stopping to the ultimate though in posting the dictionary definition of vandalism. I have no idea why you're so condescending, and frankly I often wonder why I would even reply to your posts, but this one takes the cake.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by iggyntangs

Just a quick question:

If you're the victim of being in a hit and run, i.e. you discover your parked vehicle hours later of being hit and the mirror being torn off, in terms of auto insurance what's the law in AB?

I know in Ontario, if this happens and you make a claim through insurance you pay the deductible and your premiums will not go up.

Is it the same in AB, or is it just dependent on your coverage/insurance company?

I just want to know if it'll be cheaper for me to pay for it out of pocket or pay the deductible which is hundreds of dollars cheaper (and am scared to call my insurance company to find out and then them formalizing a claim and raising my insurance)?

Of note I've made no claims through my insurance company before, only had it for 1 year only been driving for 1 year and have no accidents/tickets/demerits whatsoever.

Thanks in advance CP faithful.

Generally you can ask and give a statement and what not and can even get vehicle appraised and then decide to pull the claim with no implications generally.

That is the best way as then you deal with an adjuster who knows what the are talking about and not with your broker that doesn't know all claims rules.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I wasn't a summer student. I gave you a perfectly rational explanation and even said that it could be that we were giving clients a break by doing this.

Glad to see an adjuster posted here and lends some credibility to what I was saying earlier as well.

Thanks for stopping to the ultimate though in posting the dictionary definition of vandalism. I have no idea why you're so condescending, and frankly I often wonder why I would even reply to your posts, but this one takes the cake.

Probably a broker like the ones I deal with on a daily basis, ignorant to all the procedures of a claims department

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I wasn't a summer student. I gave you a perfectly rational explanation and even said that it could be that we were giving clients a break by doing this.

Glad to see an adjuster posted here and lends some credibility to what I was saying earlier as well.

Thanks for stopping to the ultimate though in posting the dictionary definition of vandalism. I have no idea why you're so condescending, and frankly I often wonder why I would even reply to your posts, but this one takes the cake.

Then back up what you are saying. If you are going to give advice that is false I am going to call you on it. Call any claims department in town and they will tell you the same thing. Much of what you posted in this thread is completely false.

[macker]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

Probably a broker like the ones I deal with on a daily basis, ignorant to all the procedures of a claims department

Why not weigh in on how you think the policy will respond in this case? Back it up......

[FlamesKickAss]

I already told you it depends on the company and the whole situation

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

Probably a broker like the ones I deal with on a daily basis, ignorant to all the procedures of a claims department

Wait don't you work in property claims? what could you possibly know about auto?

[macker]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

I already told you it depends on the company and the whole situation

1. Hit and run : Collision or Comprehensive ?

2. Hitting a deer : Collision or Comprehensive?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by macker

1. Hit and run : Collision or Comprehensive ?

2. Hitting a deer : Collision or Comprehensive?

As he said technically both are collisions its the individual companies that decide how to code them. You lost all credibility at deer are flying objects . . .

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

Then back up what you are saying. If you are going to give advice that is false I am going to call you on it. Call any claims department in town and they will tell you the same thing. Much of what you posted in this thread is completely false.

How so? I posted my thoughts and how I thought the claim would be handled based on my experience handling these actual claims. A current adjuster comes in and says how they would likely handle the claim, which is similar to what I was saying. There's nothing false about that information.

You on the other hand break out an online dictionary reply and want to discuss my credibility. To top it all off your "call and claims department" line is hilarious. FKA works in claims and JUST TOLD YOU that this could well be a comprehensive claim.

Any chance you're able to provide evidence of flying deer? Surely you can explain why we should believe that a deer would be considered a flying object?

[macker]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

As he said technically both are collisions its the individual companies that decide how to code them. You lost all credibility at deer are flying objects . . .

What other peril listed under comprehensive would apply then? Insurance companies have always adjusted these claims as comprehensive as when you hit the deer it is typically in the air and a flying object. Flying object = Comprehensive. Let me know when they start adjusting these claims any differently.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

What other peril listed under comprehensive would apply then? Insurance companies have always adjusted these claims as comprehensive as when you hit the deer it is typically in the air and a flying object. Flying object = Comprehensive. Let me know when they start adjusting these claims any differently.

Comprehensive doesn't always mean a flying object though. It's a more"comprehensive" coverage than that. It could be fire, theft, falling objects, a multitude of things really.

Oh, and apology accepted.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

How so? I posted my thoughts and how I thought the claim would be handled based on my experience handling these actual claims. A current adjuster comes in and says how they would likely handle the claim, which is similar to what I was saying. There's nothing false about that information.

You on the other hand break out an online dictionary reply and want to discuss my credibility. To top it all off your "call and claims department" line is hilarious. FKA works in claims and JUST TOLD YOU that this could well be a comprehensive claim.

Any chance you're able to provide evidence of flying deer? Surely you can explain why we should believe that a deer would be considered a flying object?

As pointed out he is likely a property adjuster and isn't even going anywhere near policy wordings or SPF#1. Also I was joking about the summer student crack and apologize if you took it as arrogant I just found it surprising that it seemed you were able to give people coverage arbitrariliy out of good will under comprehensive when it has always been covered under collision. These things don't vary from company to company as some are saying. These are standard wordings right out of the SPF#1.

[Slava]

The wordings are standard, but adjusting claims isn't really black and white. There is a fair amount of give and take.

FKA is a property guy now, but I think he was an auto guy before.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Slava

The wordings are standard, but adjusting claims isn't really black and white. There is a fair amount of give and take.

FKA is a property guy now, but I think he was an auto guy before.

Yeah if FKA starts giving out property advice then its time to worry

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

The wordings are standard, but adjusting claims isn't really black and white. There is a fair amount of give and take.

FKA is a property guy now, but I think he was an auto guy before.

There is no upside for an insurance company to not follow the wordings and code things to favor an insured or let things slide. I realize this may happen from time to time but I wouldn't count on it.