Was traveling around the Atlanta Perimeter on the way to DFW for Christmas in our Sienna. Suddenly, my wife and I see a spinning piece of metal kick over from the lane to our right directly in front of us and have no choice but to run over it. Piece of metal hits front bumper and does very minor damage, but goes underneath the car and punctures the heater pipe which carries engine coolant to the rear of the van and also puts a hole in the muffler. Was fortunate to get towed to a dealer nearby and continue onwards in a rental. The piece of metal likely fell off a truck but will never know what it was or where it came from.

USAA is classifying this as 'at fault' under collision and not under comprehensive since the debris went underneath the car. The agent's explanation is that it would have been akin to hitting a pot-hole; a single-car accident. I have accident forgiveness so it shouldn't jack up my rates but classifying it this way ticks me off. Is USAA in the wrong or am I?

Read your contract. Definitions are included.

Jack Cheese said:

---

Why does this magic phrase cast a spell on the insurance company?

---

I wouldn't suggest it casts a spell, but instead subtly alerts the agent that you would expect him/her to process your claim fairly. I find myself in agreement with the position of the previous posters... and the scenario painted by the OP is dissimilar to running over a pothole.

Insurance companies aren't in business to pay claims and, more often than not, must be encouraged to be fair. Me thinks you know that. In my experience the "Good faith" suggestion achieves fairness in certain circumstances.

Further, good faith lawsuits cost a ton to defend and... based upon the description of the "accident"... maybe the insurance company has an actuary who will do the math. The "good faith" suggestion likely will be considered in the calculation.

Cheers!

Thanks all. I tried some suggestions above while talking to a manager but they're sticking to their guns on this one. Something about 'new training' and 'being consistent with these types of claims'. Only other avenues are taking it to executive resolutions or submitting a complaint with department of insurance but don't expect either of those to be fruitful. I'll simply be prepared to change insurers if they jack up my rates come renewal time.

Drivers beware if you have USAA and your vehicle is damaged going over anything that happens to touch the ground.

Sasappis said:

---

Would you have to pay the deductible if they classified it the other way?

I am not really sure it matters either way. Even in a non fault accident they raise your rates because of claims.

---

Yes, but comprehensive deductible is $300 less and doesn't paint me as some sort of negligent driver on their records :/

Not USAA, but my wife had a Very large piece of tire get kicked up in front of her and she hit it, ran over it, and it damaged multiple parts of her vw beetle.

She called the insurance company and they told her that it was her fault she hit it. She called again and talked to a different agent and again they told her it was her fault. on her third call the agent asked, "was it airborne?" and my wife replied "yes!!"

They covered the cost of damage ($2400) and only charged her the deductible.

Keep fighting it.

And airborne does make a difference.

Was the damage caused by some thing on the road or was it airborne?

File a complaint with the DOI(dept of insurance) in the state your policy is in if after speaking to a supervisor at USAA doesnt change it to comp. If the object was moving at the time pf impact if should be classified as a "missile" and would be a comp claim.

If the object was in the process of falling when impact occurred then it's probably comp.
If the object had fallen and was on the pavement when impact occurred most carriers consider it collision with a stationary object.

This may not help but I figured I'd chime in as a current P&C underwriter and former claims adjuster.

There is a misconception that a collision is "at fault" and a comp claim is not. Ultimately, carriers are for profit entities and the payout could affect your rates regardless of the coverage it is paid under. I wouldn't sweat this unless the difference in deductibles is substantial.

It sounds like your accident forgiveness is going to take care of you either way.

I thought USAA was known as the most customer service focused insurance company out there?

hypeiv said:

---

I'm not sure how accident forgiveness works, but if his accident forgiveness covers it, doesn't that burn his one get out of jail free card, or will they offer this protection again after the first accident? I'd still be annoyed my accident forgiveness was wasted on something it shouldn't have been wasted on.

I don't have accident forgiveness because it seems kind of hokey to me. It's basically insurance that your insurance won't go up, which is a little too derivative for me. (why not have insurance that your insurance's insurance won't go up, where does it end?) Also the coverage seems arbitrary... i.e. it says your premium won't go up because of an accident, but if your premiums go up the next year, they can just BS you and say its because of any other random factor.

---

I've always suspected that "accident forgiveness" is really just pre-paying your first accident in the form of higher premiums from the outset. Maybe I'm just cynical. I have no insider knowledge.

I've had awesome service with our USAA car insurance and beyond terrible service with our USAA dwelling insurance. I'll be switching as soon as we're through the active claim we have.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Good luck. I left USAA years ago after they decided customer service and honesty was no longer important. You're lucky they haven't sent their "investigator" out yet to accuse you of lying about this accident and to threaten not to pay for anything.

---

This happened to my dad on a hail claim. He had my brother's 350Z parked on the lemon lot for sale at Peterson when a hail storm came through. He was out of town at the time. When he got back and filed a claim, they sent an investigator out and denied the claim, accusing him of intentionally causing the damage himself. I dumped them shortly thereafter.

hypeiv said:

---

I'm not sure how accident forgiveness works, but if his accident forgiveness covers it, doesn't that burn his one get out of jail free card, or will they offer this protection again after the first accident? I'd still be annoyed my accident forgiveness was wasted on something it shouldn't have been wasted on.

---

That, and I've applied for non-automotive insurance where I was asked to disclose any at-fault car accidents. A clean history is worth fighting for, IMO.

Still with them, but the small things aren't the same. It's been years since I was referred to by my rank.

It's all in how you word it. Read your policy carefully to figure out how comprehensive coverage works and what is covered. That will give you exactly the verbiage and story you need to make the right claim for proper coverage.