Per a conversation with an agent at the Kim Partin agency of State Farm in North Carolina that I had in 1999, hitting a deer counts against you just as if you had run into a tree or the ditch and needed repairs as a result of that.
Well that’s no good.
I could see how it is the driver’s fault for losing control and hitting a tree ditch, etc. And in certain circumstances I’d agree that a driver could be at fault for hitting a deer. But in this case, where there was no opportunity to see the deer beforehand, it was still light out and we were going only 50 mph down a county road (speed limit was 55) its hard to say that we were doing something wrong.
Especially since the deer clearly did not have his signal on …
Now I know why everyone out in the sticks drives pickups. Deer v. Honda is a much closer match than Deer v. F-150 with a monster grill guard…
I believe that here in the Great Garden State, they count a deer as “not your fault.” At least someone I know says the police told her that. YMMV.
On the other hand, I know if you swerve to MISS an animal and crash into something instead, it is considered “your fault.” At least partly, I imagine that could be because otherwise any time someone drove carelessly and hit something, they’d claim there was an animal in the road, and it would be hard to prove one way or the other.
Hitting animals comes under my “comprehensive” and is not a “fault” issue. I think this is standard in CA.
Oddly- for this purpose, a “person” counts as an “object” ( under collision insurance) and not an “animal”. Weird.
People sure run into a lot of deer. I dont know how they do that cause we have alot of them & never even get near them. They do make a little whistle thing you can put on your car to alert them that you’re coming down the street.
Whether it’s covered or not you’d have to ask your agent.
Yes, hitting an animal is considered comprehensive or “other-than-collision”, same as fire or windshield damage. I know that some insurance companies drop you after one comprehesive claim (not the best ones). Most good ones don’t and in fact are not allowed to hold it against you (depends on the state). You might want to check your policy and make sure you have comprehensive (which you probably do).
FWIW
I think I have an incredible insurance company. Allow me to explain.
July 15, 2002 (almost a full year) I was out on my bachelor party. Still don’t know how it happened, but at 2:30 a.m. Monday morning (Sunday night) I was literally 70 feet from my front door when I hit a parked pickup. My car was totalled (after paying $2100 for an engine rebuild 5 weeks earlier), but I digress.
Not learning my lesson, 6 weeks later I was clocked at 96 in a 55 so suffered a double suspension. Granted, it was a remote highway (Which one in North Dakota isn’t?) But still, to this day my premiums are the same as 2 years ago.
Go with an independant agent, they can find the best deals. My insurer is based in Milwaukee, WI and not listed in the Yellow Pages
I settle total losses for … THE major property and casualty company in the US. I can provide the following information:
If you hit a deer or any other animal, alive or dead at the time of the collision; if you car is hailed on, vandalized, stolen, takes a rock in the windshield; this is covered under COMPREHENSIVE coverage, and is not subject to any…uh, in English we’ll just call it a premium increase.
If you drive your car into something, or roll it over, or park it next to a riverbank which subsequently collapses; you are deemed to have been the proximate cause of the loss and will see a…uh, premium increase.
If Johnny Rotten slams into you while you are parked at a stop light (or are otherwise NOT AT FAULT) then you have two options: 1) call Johnny’s insurance company and file the claim, or 2) call your own company and file a COLLISION claim (if you have purchased that coverage). If you file under your own policy, you will have to pay your deductible. Your company will then “subrogate” against the loser who caused the accident to collect the net loss of the claim. If you had to shell out a deductible, then you will get it back. From what I can gather, it sounds like some companies will give you the old … premium increase … for asking them to handle the claim, even if you are not responsible for the damage. This could be, depending on how they have filed their surcharge structure with your particular state.
“No Fault” typically refers to medical damages only. the way-too-simple explanation is, “it doesn’t matter WHO caused the accident, payments for medical damages will come out of each party’s own policy.” Colorado has just kicked this policy to the curb.
Exactly how an insurance company reacts to your driving record depends on lots of stuff like: Are you coming to the company as new business? What is the nature of any tickets you OR ANYONE ELSE in your household has, how many? What KINDS of claims have you filed (generally, COMPREHENSIVE is disregarded) in the last 3-5 years.
Because companies are different, I would STRONGLY suggest you have a 1 on 1 with your insurance agent and discuss what will affect your premium. If you pay a company that does not give you an agent, then wake up, get REAL insurance, and talk to your agent. Taht’s what you pay 'e,m for. If your agent won’t talk to you, then call a different agent within the same company…bet THAT person would be GLAD to have your business.
I was heading northbound, following at a safe distance from the vehicle (Chevette) ahead of me, on a highway at about 50mph. On the southbound side left-turn lane (i.e., against us), the idiot in an old Olds 98 made the left turn right in front of the leading car, which being a light Chevette vs. some big slow boat, pretty much came to a stop instantly. I saw the accident starting to happen, and locked the brakes. Had plenty of time to realize I’d hit the Chevette, and just let it happen. There was no where else to go. The idiot in the Olds was deemed 100% responsible.
Oh, did I mention that the extent of my damage was some of the Chevette’s white paint on my black paint?
I’d have to see a cite on that. At least here that’s a crock!
If you hit the car in front of you, you were following too close. It doesn’t make any difference why he stopped; you are required to leave enough space between your car and the car in front of you to stop in any circumstance. You are at fault.
I’m not going to pretend I know something about auto insurance, but I heard or read the following explanations for premiums going up is you’re involved in an accident not of your fault :
1)Statistically, it means you’re more likely to be involved in another accident in the future (IOW, drivers involved in an accident caused by someone else weren’t able to avoid said accident, hence are likely to be poorer drivers. That might be true or not in an individual case, but given a large enough population, it results in said population being a higher risk than people never involved in any accident). That would be the main reason.
2)Secondarily, it deters you from asking a payment for minor damages, whether you’re responsible or not, so you’re costing less to the the company on the overall.
But that’s only hearsay…
I must say that this was my reaction as well. Sure, the guy who turned across the traffic caused the accident, and probably should be held legally responsible. But i’ve always been under the impression that a safe distance was one that would allow you to stop in time no matter what the cause of the accident in front of you.
When I lived in TX I was hit at an intersection when a guy ran a stop sign. He was given a ticket for failing to stop and his insurance fixed my truck.
I was very surprised to find that my insurance went up and it lasted for three years! 
I had no other previous claims other than from hail damage.
**1)Statistically, it means you’re more likely to be involved in another accident in the future (IOW, drivers involved in an accident caused by someone else weren’t able to avoid said accident, hence are likely to be poorer drivers. That might be true or not in an individual case, but given a large enough population, it results in said population being a higher risk than people never involved in any accident). That would be the main reason.
2)Secondarily, it deters you from asking a payment for minor damages, whether you’re responsible or not, so you’re costing less to the the company on the overall.**
With regard to #1, there is definitely a school of thought that suggests that 90% of all accidents are avoidable by the “not at fault” party. It’s easy: Assume NOBODY is going to yield at an intersection, and assume you are invisible on the highway. Still, there’s not a lot you can do when you’ve stopped for a light and some nutcase is coming up behind you dialing his cell phone instead of looking at the road ahead. BUT HERE IN AMERICA, #1 is not a legal tactic for insurance companies in any state had dealings with. Simply put, you can’t penalize someone for bad luck, you have to penalize them for bad habits (speeding, running into stuff, etc). I, for one, would not want to be a defendant addressing a jury trying to advance the point that, despite the fact that Buffy has never caused an accident nor has she ever had any moving violations, I think she’s an above-average risk. It’s like saying, “that’s what those people get for working in The World Trade Center, they knew terrorists had hit it before.”
With regard to #2, you have the right to file a claim under any coverage for which you pay a premium. In the world of Auto Insurance, filing a claim does not make you a greater risk, driving badly, with or without results, does. Homeowner’s insurance is a different matter. If you file a claim, it’s probably because of something you did.
If you get a premium increase, and you don’t think you did anything wrong, check with your insurance carrier. Chances are an error was made that coded YOU as the responsible party.
If you EVER put the front of your car on someone else’s rear bumper you’re going down. The only 2 exceptions I can think of are 1) their car rolled back into your stationary car and 2) you can prove that they created a sudden emergency by slamming on the brakes for no other reason than to get you to hit 'em (moral: this is an ineffective way to deal with tail gaters!). Even if the roads are a sheet of ice and you slide 30 feet at 3 mph into another car, the logic will go: you judged the road and drove on it, if this accident is not YOUR fault, then whose? Ya gotta be able and ready to control your car at all times under all conditions. You owe this to the other drivers on the road.
(and similary Fear Itself had the same sentiments).
Well, the police and the insurance companies certainly didn’t see me at any fault what-so-ever. There are exceptions to every rule-of-thumb, and this is one of them. When you think about it, the only safe distance at 50mph, assuming 5 seconds 50-0 braking, one car every 5 seconds. That’s 14.4 cars per mile. That’s a LOT of space. There aren’t a lot of hard rules, and I dare anyone to come up with a code (in Michigan, anyway) that says the rear-driver is always at fault.
Well, don’t accept my dare: I looked it up myself:
So, it would appear that on the surface I was legally at fault, regardless of the officers and insurance people telling me otherwise. But maybe (1) the word “overtook” is an out, implying that I was driving at a constant or accelerating speed rather than braking. Or (2) “lawfully standing upon any highway” is an out – there’s nothing legal about being at a dead stop in the middle of a highway (turn lanes excepted). Finally, (3) the words “prima facie” seem to be the rock solid “let’s reason out the circumstances” type of out.
In any case, I assure you that my rates didn’t go up (this was the OP, after all).
[humble]Any, uh, yeah, I was wrong about the state law thing.[/humble]
Balthisar, i don’t really think you were responsible for the accident in which you were involved. Obviously, the fuckwit who turned across traffic is to blame for that.
The only point i was trying to make is that, if you had been travelling further back, the accident would only have involved two cars, not three (i.e., not yours).
You may have been at fault legally for hitting the car in front, but because the guy who turned across the lane caused the initial accident, obviously the cops decided that he was responsible for all of its consequences.
And i wouldn’t really term the accident a “rear-ender,” the way you did in your initial post. If the guy in foront of you had slammed his brakes on in time to avoid the turning car, and you had hit him, that would have been a rear-ender and you would have been at fault. But the fact that the guy in front of you hit the turning guy makes the whole scenario different, IMHO.