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...