Community Forums

golden · 06-04-2013, 11:33 AM

I didn't know where else to put this, so here it is.

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?

RustyJC · 06-04-2013, 11:41 AM

A chargeable (i.e., at fault) collision claim would tend to be significantly more detrimental to your rates with this or any future insurance company than a comprehensive claim. I'm struggling to see how they are turning this one into a collision claim, but I know that my motorcycle insurer uses some pretty perverse logic as well - when a parked motorcycle falls off a centerstand due to (let's say) a gust of wind, it's a chargeable collision instead of a comprehensive claim since, in the words of the adjuster, "It's a chargeable collision because the bike collided with the pavement."

So, I guess your roof must have collided with a gust of wind.

Rusty

workinrvers · 06-04-2013, 12:18 PM

sounds like maybe the "also three major rips toward the center of the roof, ranging from about 1' to 3' " is what gives them pause to say it might have been initiated by a collision of some sort. They may be thinking it's caused by a low hanging tree limb that you drove under in a campground and then exasperated by the wind when going down the road.
This is only a guess on my part but would seem logical based on the information you listed.
Seems to me to be very subjective as to calling it collision damage vs comprehensive damage. Perhaps a conversation with the adjusters supervisor is in order where you can express your concerns on their decisions.

Phil

Winepress · 06-04-2013, 12:41 PM

I would argue on this one. Since there is no evidence of a collision it should be a comp claim. Even though a broken windshield is a collision with a rock, it is considered a comp claim.

lx22 · 06-04-2013, 02:25 PM

Over spring break high winds ripped my awning off my camper. I called state farm and they filed it on comprehensive for the awning and the roof.

djbmsu · 06-04-2013, 07:35 PM

I think the key here is "while on the road" Comp is usually applied to when the vehicle is stopped or parked and or stored. Collision is defined while "on the road" I could be wrong

jeryan59 · 06-04-2013, 08:04 PM

On the road would have nothing to do with whether it is comprehensive or collision. Hail storm going down the road is still a comprehensive claim. Another vehicle hitting your parked vehicle in your driveway and leaving the scene is a collision claim.

Collision is defined in your policy as a collision with another vehicle or object. A collision can happen when the vehicle is parked, a hit and run vehicle can collide with your vehicle and that is a collision claim.

Comprehensive claim is defined as other than collision, such as fire, theft or vandalism. If you hit an animal, or if your auto is flooded or stolen, Comprehensive coverage will apply.

The major difference is the deductible if they are different for comprehensive and collision.

If this is your first claim, it shouldn't impact your premium. I agree with other advice to appeal the decision.

Collision are not always chargeable, for example an uninsured motorist is at fault, your collision will respond. A hit and run vehicle hits your parked unoccupied vehicle, that is a collision claim.

If your deductible is he same for comprehensive or collision, I wouldn't be overly concerned with which coverage they pay the claim.

Wayne MD · 06-04-2013, 09:58 PM

I'd be concerned if you know you didn't hit anything prior to problem. It should be comp and if you get another collision added to yoor record, your going to pay more. This can certainly impact your safe driving record. I'd contest this and get it changed to comp.

JMonroe · 06-05-2013, 06:58 AM

I can only guess that the adjuster saw something on the roof that looked like it had struck something. IF that were the case, the reasoning could be that the collision weakened the structure rendering it unable to cope with the wind. I'm reaching here.

The comment about possibly being more detrimental to your future rates could be true. There may also be a difference in deductibles, although many RV policies have the same deductible, regardless of cause. Each company sets it's own standards, within legislated allowances.