These terms are clearly defined in auto policies and are strictly regulated. I just read mine, and the things that are covered under my comprehensive policy are in a plain-english list that, clear as day, wouldn't cover this.

Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision".

And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. That's kind of what you can expect to get when you prioritize time-to-market above anything else. I like to buy old motorcycles that don't have any parts availability and everything has to be custom done... but I wouldn't do that with my daily driver.

As pointed out in another comment, I think this is a case of US / UK difference in insurance jargon. Debris damaging the undercarriage would not be covered by the closest UK equivalent of collision insurance (CDW on rentals), as I understand it.

I also think insurance is a bit of a red herring here. You wouldn't claim on insurance for a flat tyre either; some things are just bad luck. It's the quality of engineering - what I do think is on topic - which controls the risk.

Except, in most vehicles something like this would not result in 16k quote to repair so the insurance not covering it is not the end of the world.

This I would say is more of design oversight on tesla’s part. At the very least there should have been a shroud or cover over more vulnerable parts.

That's a pretty typical construction for a cradle tube frame. A Triumph Tiger 800 is not a high performance bike. Cradle frames are cheap, the bikes that have bolted on subframes typically have backbone frames and use the engines as stressed members. Also that subframe attachment is an adjustment point for fine-tuning rider position.

> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision".

The insurance that covers such an event is literally called collison insurance.

I have no clue why you're being downvoted (and I'm being downvoted now too, lol). If you hit a rock in the road, or a pothole, or a tree, it is covered under collision insurance.

For posterity: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collision-insurance.asp

> ... it will cover damage from potholes, and accidents involving an inanimate object.

Perhaps part of the confusion here is UK vs US? A collision in the UK would normally involve a third party.

In the rental space, collision damage waivers - CDWs - explicitly don't cover undercarriage, wheels, windshields and so on, the kind of damage we're talking about here.

https://www.aviva.co.uk/insurance/motor/car-insurance/what-a...

At the US rental companies I've used, CDWs specifically do cover those things, and in fact cover pretty much everything related to any damage of the vehicle (with caveats, like you were using the vehicle for something illegal). I guess the US/UK difference is good to keep in mind next time I head to the UK.

https://www.avis.com/en/help/usa-faqs/cdw-insurance

https://www.avis.com/en/products-and-services/protections/lo...

Ah yeah. In the US, collision also typically applies to single vehicle collisions. (With the frequent exception of animal collision)

Indeed. I have full coverage with Geico, as well as uninsured motorist coverage, damage etc.

Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones on the highway late at night so we had to navigate a field of almost impossible to see cones (the borders are black and there were no lights up). Several cars, including mine ended up running over a few. I got lucky as it just messed up my paint a bit on the front bumper and I lost a license plate. Two other vehicles crashed over it, really sucked.

Called Geico when I got home and was informed I don't have collision coverage. They told me for this I would have needed comprehensive coverage and collision coverage.

Well joke's on them, my renewal is this month and I'm bouncing. I'd rather find another company that won't weasel out on me. When I signed up I said I wanted to be covered no matter what. I pay enough monthly I should be.

Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. It ends up being a tax we pay to still have to pay out of pocket no matter what.

Yikes. That’s an unfortunate but sadly common mistake. Terms like “full coverage” don’t really have any real meaning, despite people repeating the made-up term.

I am fairly certain that it would be illegal for an agent to sell that to you without clarifying.

Funny enough, one of the first articles to pop up in a search for this is from Geico: https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-c...

We shouid start giving age, area code, points on license, and price per year for auto insurance.

I have a feeling the rats are collaborating on price.

> Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should.

What's your alternative to mandatory liability insurance, given that there are drivers with much greater liability risk than others?

Not sure maybe we all just pay a tax to cover the damage...exactly like insurance is supppsed to be, but more like a co-op so it's just us, no C-Suite asshats stealing 99% of the money for themselves. Insurance on paper sounds good, it's the ever-greedier businesses that eff it all up.

As another reply to me mentioned, 'full-coverage' should be just that. The US allows so much lies I believe nothing, our gov't lies ,ads lie, politicians lie,police lie,lawyers...well

That doesn't pass the smell test for me - with a co-op, incentives are aligned for everyone. With liability that's covered by society, you create incentives that are directly opposed - e.g. you can drive a giant SUV that's more deadly to other drivers and pedestrians - and without mandatory insurance, you're getting the benefits of driving a tank-like vehicle while offloading all the costs and risks onto others.

You'd also need some new framework for dealing with high-risk drivers - e.g. instead of increasing the insurance cost for someone with a DUI conviction, you'd need to simply take away their ability to drive.

There also exist numerous jurisdictions with publicly provided insurance, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_Briti...

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of collide

intransitive verb 1 : to come together with solid or direct impact

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collide

Its a stretch to describe road debris coming together with solid impact to the undercarriage a collision?

Important words in contracts are usually defined in the contract itself. "Collision" is almost certainly defined in any automobile insurance contract you purchase. If you can read code, you can (and should!) read the contracts you sign, especially contracts that could pay you money.

Relying on the dictionary alone can mislead you.

Here's the pertinent definition from my policy (USAA specifically):

  "Collision" means the impact with an object and includes upset of a vehicle. Loss caused by the following is covered under Comprehensive Coverage and is not considered collision: fire; missiles or falling objects; hail, water or flood; malicious mischief or vandalism; theft or larceny; riot or civil commotion; explosion orearthquake; contact with bird or animal; windstorm; or breakage of window glass

I understand words can often have their definitions narrowed and agree people should read their contracts. I tend to irk sales people because I do bother to read all the papers they start throwing my way and start asking questions they've never been asked by the hundreds of customers.

The person I was replying to wasn't referencing any particular contract. They were just speaking generally about hitting road debris being a stretch to define as a collision.

> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision".

Seeing as how neither I nor he referenced any particular insurance contract, why would we then bother to use your insurance contract to define the term instead of probably the one shared point between us to define the term (the dictionary)? Why not reference a contract I'll sign with a friend where for the purposes of the contract a collision is defined only as a 5 foot person running into a blue colored wall. I guess a car slamming into a wall isn't a collision anymore since this one contract defines it a different arbitrary way!

Whenever I see contract language like

> bird or animal

I want to know the background behind why some lawyer found that necessary. :)

My guess is that it happens so frequently that it wouldn't be profitable to cover damages caused by hitting animals.

I am referring to the fact that birds are animals.

Not really the debris is colliding with the car. Even a pebble hitting a wind shield can hit with quite a bit of force and is also a collision. Let alone larger debris on the road. Also both objects dont need to be moving for instance you can collide into a tree or guard rail.

Now insurance certainly can exclude things that are collisions. A common on in the US are animal collisions like deer ect...