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...