My Toyota was hit by what I believe to be a hit-and-run driver. Which

R

Robert L

New member
coverage pays for the damage.? I reside in California. My 2007 Toyota 4Runner was hit by what I believe was a hit-and-run driver. It was at night while I was inside, and there were no witnesses. I have comprehensive and uninsured/underinsured property damage. I do not have collision. A relative has State Farm and had a similar incident two years ago- he had only liability and uninsured/underinsured property damage coverage- no collision or comprehensive. State Farm paid for the apparent hit-and-run damage via his uninsured/underinsured property damage portion of his policy.

Various websites are giving me conflicting information. Laws are stating that I should be covered under uninsured/underinsured property damage. People with past experience with hit-and-runs claim that their insurer covered it under the comprehensive portion of their policy, since there were no witnesses and it is unknown if it was a hit-and-run. Most people claim their insurer used the uninsured/underinsured portion of their policy to cover the property damage, even though the hit-and-run driver was unidentified. Agents and claims reps "claim" that it should be covered under collision. The "collision" option of the policy, which I did not purchase, was explained as a policy that covers any vehicle or object that I hit, it was never explained nor entailed other objects or vehicles hitting me- that was explained under comprehensive.

I purchased comprehensive coverage to cover things out of my control, including hit and run drivers. This is also why I pay more for a uninsured/underinsured property damage policy. I am an extremely safe driver with NO violations or accidents and trust my driving, so I chose not to pay for collision, which doubles the price of your policy in California.

Please, only those with experience in California reply.
 
You're getting conflicting information from various websites, because insurance coverages vary from state to state. California's uninsured motorist property damage coverage, is limited to $3500. In some states, you CAN buy more of that coverage. California isn't one of those states.

Now, you claim to have "uninsured/underinsured property damage" coverage. If you really do, then you have coverage for this accident, up to the limit of uninsured motorist property damage coverage you have, which isn't more than $3500. BUT, keep in mind, many, many people read the first couple of words - uninsured/underinsured - and SKIP the next two, which are EITHER bodily injury, OR property damage. So most people with underinsured/uninsured coverage, have the coverage for INJURIES, not for property damage.



Collision, throughout the USA, is contact with another vehicle, or flipping your car. Generally, it's anything that hits you from the front, back, or sides. Comprehensive, is FALLING OBJECTS, like a tree falling on your car, or a branch, or a stone kicking up and hitting your windshield.

So. If you have UMPD - uninsured motorist property damage - that will pay, up to $3500, or your limit, if you didn't buy that much.

Verbal explanations don't hold water - if you've had the policy for more than a couple weeks, you are presumed to have READ the policy, and written definitions take precedence over verbal ones - especially if the person you talked to, denies what you alledge.

ps. I hope you used an agent. If you did, you have a potential E&O lawsuit against them. But it sounds like you did "do it yourself" insurance.
 
Back
Top