Hit and run

[Kris B.]

Jurisdiction

Tennessee

My daughter has a car registered in the state of Minnesota. She goes to school in Nashville Tennessee. Someone hit her car while it was parked in a legal parking place on the street. We have comprehensive, uninsured, under insured and PL PD insurance. Witnesses did not get a license number but sought it enter A parking lot to the rear of her car, buzz around the empty parking lot and exit the lot to the front of her car. They swung toward her car and hit it. It appeared to be on purpose as they had no reason to turn to get her car. It was 2 AM, streets were empty.

Insurance is denying it, saying it would only be covered under collision insurance. We say it was an act of vandalism, or if this person was drunk, they damaged our property in the commission of a crime. How would a lawyer look at this?

 

[ElleMD]

Sounds like just an accident, unless daughter dearest knows more than she is telling you. There is no reason to believe the unknown driver randomly targeted her car or was drunk. Much more likely it was just a confused/bad driver. This is pretty much what collision insurance is there for.

 

[adjusterjack]

You raise an interesting point.

We say it was an act of vandalism

You "say" it was an act of vandalism. You write that "it appeared to be on purpose."

Tennessee criminal code 39-14-408
(b) A person commits the offense of vandalism who knowingly:
(1) Causes damage to or the destruction of any real or personal property of another

Note the word "knowingly."

You would have to prove, with evidence (not sayso, speculation, opinion, allegation, feelings, belief, etc) that the person "knowingly" drove his car into your daughter's car.

Until you can prove that, it's collision and you don't have collision coverage. Can't imagine why you wouldn't have it.

if this person was drunk, they damaged our property in the commission of a crime.

Drunk drivers damage other cars every day and it's always covered by collision so that idea will never fly.

How would a lawyer look at this?

For the answer to that question you would have to hire a lawyer or wait for either of our two lawyer participants to comment.

Meantime, you get me, a retired claim rep who spent 35 years in the insurance industry, and other non-lawyers who care to comment.

 

[army judge]

Had the owner reported her car as being vandalized, ABSENT the extra commentary to salt the mine, the insurance would have paid the claim under comprehensive.

As adjusterjack correctly concluded, being as knowledgeable as anyone about insurance claims, Snowflake's car would now be under repair at insurance company expense BUT FOR the incident being declared a collision. He is as right as rain on another fine analysis.

By talking on and on and on, in an effort to build the perfect claim, someone talked themselves outta the claim.

However, with all that video evidence, the owner of the offending car might eventually identified. That, however, will also be of no benefit to Snowflake. Someone will need to also identify the driver to, perhaps get a slim chance of potential recovery!!!!

 

[adjusterjack]

Had the owner reported her car as being vandalized, ABSENT the extra commentary to salt the mine, the insurance would have paid the claim under comprehensive.

With one teeny little caveat.

In between "my car was vandalized" and "here's your check" a claim rep will elicit quite a bit of "commentary" which will reveal what actually happened and the claim would be paid under collision or denied if no collision coverage.

 

[army judge]

In between "my car was vandalized" and "here's your check" a claim rep will elicit quite a bit of "commentary" which will reveal what actually happened and the claim would be paid under collision or denied if no collision coverage.

Because people love to blab and yammer.

Heck, most of them don't truly understand that bit about "right to remain silent", do they?

Which reminded me of this oldie:

Frankie Ford

Joe Jones