Someone recently directed my attention to a humorous article about a catfish that damaged an auto’s window:
Fish Smashes Windshield; Will Insurance Cover It?
Funny claim, but when I read the story, I was not amused by this statement [emphasis added]:
“Animal damage is covered if you have optional comprehensive coverage. If you only have collision coverage, then you’re not covered.“
I’ve seen maybe a couple of personal auto policies that do restrict coverage for an animal collision only to comprehensive coverage. However, the ISO PAP and every other personal auto policy I’ve seen has no such limitation. The claim that animal collisions are not covered if you only have collision, and not comprehensive, coverage is a myth that just won’t go away.
A collision is a collision, whether with an animate or inanimate object, and covered under collision coverage on most auto policies. However, IF you have comprehensive coverage, it’s covered there and not under collision coverage. The advantage is that the comprehensive deductible is often less than the collision deductible and there likely is no rating penalty as there quite likely could be with a collision claim.
However, in the unlikely event that your personal auto policy provides collision but not comprehensive coverage, if the language is like that in the ISO PAP, it’s certainly covered as a collision.
ISO’s business auto policy is worded in an even clearer way. Check out this article:
“Myth: Only Comprehensive Coverage Covers Hitting a Deer”
I posted my disagreement with the article’s coverage conclusion on the web site and, after 8 days (so far), it still says, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I’ll update this blog post if anyone ever moderates my comment or otherwise responds.
It’s frustrating when “industry” web sites provide what I believe to be inaccurate information. On another occasion, an Independence Day article that homeowners insurance didn’t cover fireworks damage because it was usually illegal in most cities. That’s not true of most homeowners policies I’ve reviewed.
For President Obama’s inauguration, some people were renting out their homes, an industry article said there was NO coverage under homeowners policies. Once again, most homeowners policies I’ve read permit occasional rentals of the entire home and regular rental of part of the home, with some restrictions and limitations.
The “hitting an animal is not a collision” myth has been perpetuated by a number of “industry” web sites, including in the case of deer, more than one state insurance department site.
It’s bad when industry information sources and regulators publish wrong information, especially info that’s detrimental to consumers. I hope, when you come across such instances, you take the time to correct them.
Bill Wilson
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The Invisible But Potentially Catastrophic Homeowners Exclusion That’s Not An Exclusion - September 19, 2023
- Revisiting the Illusory Coverage Assertion Following a Claim Denial - September 19, 2023
- FREE Webcast: How to Survive and Thrive in a Hard Market - August 1, 2023
In the ISO PP 00 01 01 05 it defines “collision” as the upset of “your covered auto” or a “non-owned auto” or their impact with another vehicle or object. Since an animal is clearly an object, you could consider the impact with an animal a “collision” loss. However, under Part D Coverage for Damage to your Auto, Insuring Agreement B. 9. it clarifies that Contact with bird or animal is other than “collision”.
There can be two advantages for the consumer in considering losses involving animals an other than “collision” loss in that many people drop collision coverage on older vehicles due to the cost and low ACV of the vehicle while retaining other than “collision” coverage due to the broad open peril coverage and lower premium. Secondly, many auto insurance carriers weight other than “collision” losses more favorably than those losses considered to be “collision”. Finally, I believe the reason ISO considers contact with bird or animal an other than “collision” loss has to do with the fact drivers often have no control over animals which may be completely independent and unpredictable.
David, I think I agree with everything you said. In the ISO PAP, collision with an animal is considered to be an Other Than Collision claim for the reasons you indicate, plus the fact that the deductible for that coverage may be lower than that for collision coverage.
That being said, the issue is where there is collision coverage but not comprehensive coverage, something I believe to be pretty rare in personal lines. When only one of those two coverages is provided, it’s far more likely to be comprehensive rather than collision.
However, I’m responding to assertions that, IF there is only collision coverage, there is no coverage for hitting an animal because the comprehensive coverage that specifically addresses contact with an animal is missing. Collision with an animal is still a collision as outlined in the insuring agreement of the collision coverage. Collision with an animate object is just as much a collision as is collision with an inanimate object.
In fact, at the danger of introducing logic into an insurance coverage issue, it would make no sense, if a policy only covers collision, to cover someone colliding with a stationary telephone pole but not cover colliding with a mobile animal that initiated the contact through no fault of the driver.
The issue is more common in commercial lines because, under the ISO BAP, insureds have a choice of comprehensive or specified perils coverage, that latter of which does not specifically cover collision with an animal. But someone with collision and specified perils coverage on an ISO BAP still has coverage for colliding with an animal under the collision coverage. The policy is clear that collision with an animal is covered under comprehensive coverage “IF” you have such coverage. If not, then it’s simply a collision loss.
Relative to the HO Fireworks issue: in Massachusetts it is illegal to possess or use fireworks. Excepted are those organizations, typically communities organizations which have =been given licenses/permits to use fireworks. My question is whether or not a firework, such as a Roman candle, set-off by a homeowner, on his/her own residential property, in violation of the law, would be able to recover from an ISO HO-03 policy for that residence if the Roman Candle ignited and caused damage to the roof of the residence.
Thank you, in advance of your response.
Roger, I know nothing specifically in the ISO HO-3 form that excludes this. Some non-ISO forms might have a liability exclusion for “illegal” activities, as some non-ISO auto policies do, but not ISO for an activity like this.
UPDATE: I wrote this article over 4 months ago and the comments I posted on the III web page were never published. In the meantime, a III representative reached out and I explained in detail why their statement that there is no coverage without comprehensive coverage was inaccurate. I never got a response, nor has the article been corrected or an alternative opinion posted. The information continues to be inaccurate and repeated on other web sites to the potential detriment of consumers.