Collision loss or Comprehensive loss?

Question

OK, a question on a different board got me to thinking . . . Those cars on that bridge that collapsed . . .is the damage going to be covered under Collision or Comp? What about the cars that got hit by other cars on the way down? Does that make a CAR a falling object?

I haven't thought about this too hard, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people think, AND WHY!!

** I don't think the municipality will pay . . . or rather, why wouldn't it be subject to governmental immunity laws? It qualifies, therefore, the "authorities" and "owners" of the bridge are off the hook . . .**

I'm going to think about it, pull some personal lines policy forms, LOL, and I'll post thoughts maybe tomorrow.

Answer 1

This would be covered under Collision coverage. Collision covers loss or damage to the insured's vehicle from upset or collision with another vehicle or another non-flying object (flying or falling object would be covered under Comprehensive coverage) including the ground or highway. In some jurisdictions impact with another person would also be covered under collision (the damages to your vehicle, not the damages to the other pedestrian, that would be covered under Liability). We have to focus on what caused the damages. In this case the damages were caused by impact with the ground (impact damage to other vehcile would be futile to prove), therefore Collision coverage applies.
Obviously the accidents would be considered not-at-fault, however the deductible would still apply. Whether the insurer could subrogate against the governing body responsible is another matter.

Answer 2

Hm. That's an interesting question. My initial feeling would be Collision because it covers collision or upset of vehicle. Falling off of a bridge would in my mind qualify as upset.

I know that some folks will make the argument, however, that it would be a comprehensive loss since they never collided with anything, the road just went out from under them.

I'm betting that the companies will pay out under comprehensive and then try to subrogate against the government agency that is responsible for the bridge.

Answer 3

My first instinct is to say comp. The cars were rendered total losses because of flood.

(and for those that don't know...yes flood is covered under the comp coverage of an auto policy - homeowners and flood is a completely different animal)

However, if the vehicle owner did not have comp but did have collision - they you could probably make the argument and get it covered under collision -because the cars collided with the water/other cars/bridge.

Hmmm, now I'm going to have to pull and auto policy tomorrow and look it over- maybe bat it around the office with some of the others.

Answer 4

well....it will depend on what the policy says. The policy language governs.

The policy specifically defines what IS and is NOT considered collison or comprehensive damage.

Comprehensive coverage is usually defined as ANY cause of loss EXCEPT your vehicles collision with another object or the covered autos overturn.

Collision is coverage is provided for causes of loss : collision with another object or overturn.

I don't have a personal auto policy handy but in a commercial auto policy there is a specific cause of loss that addressed sinking, burning, colliion or derailement of any conveyance transporting the covered auto. I'm betting that policy language is going to have some bearing on the losses.

Re: who would pay?

Yes, cities, municipalities and the government do have specific types of immunity. However, in this case - those immunities would likely not have much bearing. Why? They would be against public policy because of the GROSS negligence allegations that WILL be made. I don't know offhand about the statuatory laws vs common laws of that state. Those will have some bearing as well.

Anyway - check out the UM/UIM policy coverage. Like I said - I don't have a personal auto policy here but there is likely some wording that will provide coverage. When I handled personal auto claims - an insured could make a claim for UM when they were involved in an accident with a city vehicle that had immunity.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

~jifr!

Answer 5

I have to agree with "swood"... I don't know all the particulars of municipality laws, but I would imagine there's a way for these people to sue them.... and win. Actually, they'd probably just settle. But in any case, in terms of the auto insurance coverage, I would have to say it'd be considered comprehensive. Ultimately, it was the bridge collapsing that caused all of this (even if one car hit another it was because of the bridge), which really could be considered an "act of God" and therefore comprehensive. It was totally out of these drivers' control.
I am curious though, what YOUR opinion on this is??

Answer 6

It is covered under Collision if you have it. Insurance companies have to pay and go after who owns the bridge. Even you don't have collision coverage, i think in this case you could ask for all kind of compensations because someone didn,t do his job. It is not just where to look for the appropriate coverage, but why the bridge collapsed and can we expect more bridges to collapse in near future. This country feels me with respect because does care of people and I don't want to be disappointed. As much responsible factors are pushed to do their jobs, as less this cases will exist.

Answer 7

Interesting question. I'm inclined to think that most carriers will err on the side of caution and call it comprehensive. This loss really doesn't meet the standard definition of collision, i.e. '...the act or process of colliding or violently coming into contact' as the sole cause. IMHO, the collisions between vehicles as they fell is secondary to the bridge falling.

I like to believe (hope?) most reputable carriers will look to afford coverage vs looking to deny it. My company recently decided shopping carts would be handled as comp, ending about 50 years of calling that type of loss collision. Who says pigs don't fly?

I also tend to think, for PR reasons, no carrier wants to be seen as "Grinchlike" with such an awful situation like this by insisting it's collision vs comp and alienating the public.

Answer 8

I don't know about the city being off the hook....They hired contractors to build, repair, and maintain that bridge. Governmental immunity does not extend to all causes of action. Cities, counties, and the federal government are sued all the time.
About your original question, submerged vehicles will be considered comp losses - regardless of whether or not they were hit by other vehicles.
Repairable, non submerged vehicles (were there any?) collision losses.

Answer 9

actually the damage would be paid by the which ever municipality the bridge is owned by (ie) the bridge belong to the city, county or state.

the car insurance co. would probably pay for the repairs and subrigate back to the right entity so the cars can be repaired/replaced quickly for their insureds

Answer 10

watch them say it was flood damage on the bridge and it isnt covered

i would think they wouldnt have the ballz to try and not pay for this, its just a few cars,not like hurricane katrina

no idea how it would be covered though