This occurred to me today when I almost backed into my own car. We have four insured cars.
What if I hit one of my cars whilst driving another? Do I make a claim against myself?
What if my spouse is driving a car, I’m driving another, and we run into one another?
I’ve heard you are SOL if you hit any of your cars listed in your insurance policy.
Assuming you have both collision and liability why wouldn’t you be able to collect?
If you only have liability insurance, I think you’re out of luck, same as if you hit a tree.
If you have collision insurance, you’re covered, same as if you hit a tree.
Collision Coverage: Applies to a specific car, optional coverage (folks tend to leave it off old/inexpensive cars). If something runs into the car, you pay the deductible and insurance pays the rest (unless it’s totaled–not even going down that rabbit hole)
Liability Coverage: Pays for damage you cause to others when you are at fault for an accident.
You’re backing the Mercedes out of the driveway and smack your parked, unoccupied Bentley.
Damage to the Bentley can be addressed by collision coverage on the Bentley policy–pay the deductible, do the repair.
Damage to the Mercedes can be addressed by collision coverage on the Mercedes policy–pay the deductible, do the repair.
But wait, Isn’t the Mercedes liable? Doesn’t your policy say something like, “We will pay for property damage you are legally obligated to pay…” Well, yes, in fact. The Mercedes caused damage as a result of the negligence of the driver. BUT (get a lawyer to explain this one) You cannot be liable to yourself. Reducto that thought ad absurdium. You want some money? Drive over your own foot and presto! Bodily injury liability claim! No, Homer. It’s a civil law thing. You can’t sue yourself, therefore you would not be legally obligated to pay yourself anything.
TLDR answer is: Your liability coverage will not pay for damage you cause to your own property.
There’s a local TV commercial for a law firm here where the “client” describes going over a curb and hitting a tree. Cut to the sleazy lawyer who says “We took over the process and they got a check!” My response is always “What? You sued the tree?”
Not sure if serious.
Anyway, once upon a time I left the door open in the family car, whereupon my mother backed out of the garage. Alas, the car was not supposed to have suicide doors.
Our insurance covered it, as it should. If, in the case of a no-fault accident where strict liability cannot be assessed, should insurance be exempt from paying?
This has the texts of the relevant statutes and even more information.
This.
Pay your deductible and you’re covered.
Fair enough, but in this case I am inclined to be on the level.
Backing the car, door snags on the house and gets broke. That’d be covered as “collision” all day long, not liability. Collision pays regardless of who is at fault. If I smash my car into yours, you can pursue repairs through my liability coverage, or you can go through your own collision coverage (whereon your company will contact my insurance company or me for reimbursement). Mom paid the collision deductible, and got the car fixed. If mom owned the house, homeowner’s dwelling coverage pays the garage damage. If the house is a rental, then liability from the car pays for the landlord’s damaged property.
Derleth: Thanks for Bagley v. Bagley. IANAL, but she sued the tortfeasor for causing the death of her husband–she just happened to be the tortfeasor–in pursuit of a derivative claim. Damages one suffers due to the injury of someone else.
So. The supreme court identified and interpreted a typo [del]in such a way as to compel an insurance company to pay money in an otherwise absurd case, big surprise[/del] with comedic effect. So great, Barbara successfully sues herself, owes herself $1,000,000. I can pay myself $1,000,000 all day long (it’ll take a few trips to the bank to redeposit the money I just withdrew, but I can get there eventually. So what’s the point? Oh yeah, there’s an insurance policy to harvest.
I am, of course, open to a less cynical interpretation of that case in addition to a nonabsurd instance of reflexive tort. 
We carry comp on the newer cars, just liability on the old runabout cars.
An interesting discussion, thanks.
As a teenager, I moved dad’s car, and backed it into the side of Uncle George’s car in the yard. Both were company cars, owned & insured on the same policy by their jointly-owned business. That collision insurance covered repairs to both vehicles.
Though the insurance company wanted to argue about taking two deductibles. one on each vehicle, but their agent pointed out that the policy said “one deductible per incident”. (Apparently, such ‘both-ours’ accidents are fairly common in commercial fleet insurance – fender-benders in the trucking yard, etc.)
My wife forgot to set the parking brake on our truck, and it rolled into my car. The insurance covered 100% of the cost, for both vehicles. We paid nothing. I asked them why we didn’t have to pay the deductible, but I didn’t understand their answer, and can’t remember it now. Can someone here provide an explanation?
I ran into a friend’s car in my own driveway and didn’t have to pay anything either. My car had no damage but hers did, and we reported it to insurance and she got it all fixed. We both had the same insurance company but I’m not sure that played into it.
Her car was paid by your Liability coverage. No deductible for that. Your deductible applies to Collision, which covers your car.
IANA [insurance] L, but this sort of situation is probably covered by your comprehensive, which covers approximately when the car is not being driven, not only when the car is not in motion. Maybe you had a weird form of comp with no deductible? Seems unlikely. I’d be interested in a more plausible answer too.
As others have said, it depends on your policy.
Of course, depending on the amount of damage, you may not want to file a claim at all.
I’m pretty sure making 2 simultaneous claims will have an effect on your rates and driving record with your insurer. It may be less expensive (in the long run) to just to pay for the repairs yourself.
About 5 years ago my former husband was in an angry hurry and hopped in my car (instead of his truck, both in the driveway) to go get a plumbing part. He carelessly backed into his own truck’s bumper w/ the side of my car, causing significant but cosmetic damage.
I called our insurance and they said they would pay for it (less the deductible of course) as we had full coverage on both vehicles w/ them. (We put it off to get things on the house done before he left the country for a year and ultimately his promises to have it fixed were forgotten.)
By the way, I found out the hard way about that rabbit hole. Suppose you have an older car in phenomenally good shape. Way less miles than a typical example of it’s class, it’s been garaged most of it’s life. Well, in the machinery world, for the most part, wear is proportional to operating time, not calendar time. This is the reason why you can pull out a Sherman tank transmission, sitting in a crate since the 1940s, and it will work basically same as new.
The insurers don’t see it that way, and will give you about as much money as you need to buy a jalopey that burns oil. While charging you an extra $40 a month for the “full coverage” privilege. I worked it out that it would be cheaper to just save that money and replace my car once it gets destroyed somehow.
I have a 1990s Toyota that has under 100k miles. No way to get another one in that kind of condition for the chicken feed the insurers gave me when I crashed it. It just had a broken front fender and some broken headlights - hardly a total loss - but apparently the 3k estimated repair bill was too much, lol. Even though I’d been paying for full coverage for a decade.
Now, since the damage was actually minor, I just argued up the settlement then repaired the damage myself for $400 in parts. But it still has cosmetic damage from the accident, so I think the way the insurance company would see it, the car is now “worthless”. They’ll still collect my premium for full coverage but if I ever lose it, then they’ll claim that since the car is only worth $3500 without the damage, and it would cost about $3000 to fix it to be cosmetically perfect, and my deductible is $500…then they’d cut me a check for nothing. “Thanks for the premium, though”.
Read the insuring agreement part of your policy’s Collision Coverage chapter to confirm this, but in my experience, Not really.
Any policy I’ve read (yes, I read car insurance policies, sometimes just for the geeky fun–does that explain a few things?) speaks of your car only in terms of its “actual cash value”, meaning, “what you could have sold it for just before it got wrecked.” Two things to take away from this.
[ol]
[li]It does NOT say, “Actual cash value, less any amounts previously paid by insurance, whether repaired or not.”[/li][li]I have yet to find a company that will reduce the ACV of a car because it has a branded (salvage, rebuilt, etc.) title.[/li][/ol]That means exactly what it sounds like it means:
[ul]
[li]You have a 1995 Camry worth $4,000[/li][li]You get some damage to the front bumper, right fender, hood, grille, and maybe a headlight, the cost of the parts and labor to restore the car is too close to the value of the car. The car is totaled. [/li][li]You do an owner-retained settlement and get $3,500 and your damaged car. [/li][li]You scour a junkyard and get some undamaged body panels & parts and do a decent repair job, maybe you don’t paint the new parts but who cares–the thing is still functional. Let’s say your car is now worth $3,000.[/li][li]Oh dear! You just rammed it into a light post![/li][li]Insurance will treat the car as though it is worth $3,000, not $3,000 minus $3,500.[/li][li]Even if you take the $3,500 and buy Bitcoins with it, content to drive around in a jacked up but serviceable Camry, the car is not worth nothing.[/li][li]Evidence: take a battered car that runs reliably and stick a For Sale sign in the window. You’ll get offers right? A fugly but reliable grocery getter is worth at least $1,000-$1,500 in any market I’ve ever seen–still, better than $0.[/li][/ul]