CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
Post Reply
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
fabdog
Posts: 2543
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:59 pm
Location: Williamsburg VA

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fabdog »

not sure about CA... but in VA the uninsured motorist coverage is required.

VA publishes a nice booklet that explains the various types of coverages and whats required/optional.

https://www.scc.virginia.gov/getattachm ... oguide.pdf

CA site indicates if you don't take the coverage you have to sign a specific waiver

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumer ... uto101.cfm

Maybe what the agent means is you may not be fully covered with collision?

Mike
User avatar
BolderBoy
Posts: 6755
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by BolderBoy »

fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 amHowever one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yes. And I was misunderstanding it all these years, too. I just went through the dance with my agent two days ago. According to her:

Collision coverage is for things YOU do to your auto (your fault). Hit a telephone pole, guardrail or run into a ditch. If you hit someone else's car and it's your fault, collision coverage fixes YOUR car.

Best to buy UM/UIM coverage .
"Never underestimate one's capacity to overestimate one's abilities" - The Dunning-Kruger Effect
exodusNH
Posts: 10350
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:21 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by exodusNH »

fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
They are separate things. You should pay for it. The minimum personal injury liability coverage in CA is $15,000. If you've never had to consume healthcare besides your regular doctor visits, be aware that $15,000 might as well be nothing. In 2005, I was in the ER. Back then it was charging $75 per minute. An ambulance ride can cost $1,000.

If someone hits you, your health insurance would cover (after your deductibles) your emergency care and some recovery. It will not cover time lost from work. Maybe you have short- and long-term disability coverage from your employer, but those only cover a portion of your income and cease when you're no longer employed.

If you were injured seriously enough that you were permanently physically disabled, UI/UM coverage would pay for the necessary modifications of your home. If you suffered a traumatic brain injury and needed extensive care for the rest of your life, UI/UM coverage would pay for that. (Up to your limits, anyway.)

Without UI/UM, all of that would come out of your pocket. Yes, you or your guardian could sue the other driver for compensation, but someone carrying $15,000 in liability coverage has no assets to attach.

The unfortunate reality is that someone could do something to you that will cost you $100,000s and you have no recourse.
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

exodusNH wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:26 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
They are separate things. You should pay for it. The minimum personal injury liability coverage in CA is $15,000. If you've never had to consume healthcare besides your regular doctor visits, be aware that $15,000 might as well be nothing. In 2005, I was in the ER. Back then it was charging $75 per minute. An ambulance ride can cost $1,000.

If someone hits you, your health insurance would cover (after your deductibles) your emergency care and some recovery. It will not cover time lost from work. Maybe you have short- and long-term disability coverage from your employer, but those only cover a portion of your income and cease when you're no longer employed.

If you were injured seriously enough that you were permanently physically disabled, UI/UM coverage would pay for the necessary modifications of your home. If you suffered a traumatic brain injury and needed extensive care for the rest of your life, UI/UM coverage would pay for that. (Up to your limits, anyway.)

Without UI/UM, all of that would come out of your pocket. Yes, you or your guardian could sue the other driver for compensation, but someone carrying $15,000 in liability coverage has no assets to attach.

The unfortunate reality is that someone could do something to you that will cost you $100,000s and you have no recourse.
I am specifically talking about property damage. The risks of medical are limited because I have full medical insurance. I don't have dependents, I have no future income to protect so I am not worried about the injury portion (which would cover other out of pocket costs, lost income, long term care, pain and suffering, etc. Even $1M isn't going to make much difference here if I am a quadriplegic.)

There are two parts to UM in my state:
UM bodily injury (what you are talking about)
UM property damage (what I am asking about)

I am amazed I've been driving around all this time thinking collision covered any collision, my fault or not.
Last edited by fortunefavored on Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

BolderBoy wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:08 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 amHowever one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yes. And I was misunderstanding it all these years, too. I just went through the dance with my agent two days ago. According to her:

Collision coverage is for things YOU do to your auto (your fault). Hit a telephone pole, guardrail or run into a ditch. If you hit someone else's car and it's your fault, collision coverage fixes YOUR car.

Best to buy UM/UIM coverage .
Well I'm glad I am not alone then. I read every word of my insurance policies and totally must have turned this into what I wanted to hear vs. what was written down. When I get the policy wording I'll read it with a more careful eye.

Good thing my cars are pretty cheap, so I don't have to carry that much.. but still.. what a miss on my part.
User avatar
Klewles
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:37 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by Klewles »

BolderBoy wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:08 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 amHowever one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault. Has anyone heard of this before?
Yes. And I was misunderstanding it all these years, too. I just went through the dance with my agent two days ago. According to her:
Collision coverage is for things YOU do to your auto (your fault). Hit a telephone pole, guardrail or run into a ditch. If you hit someone else's car and it's your fault, collision coverage fixes YOUR car.
Hmmm, I'm looking at my CA policy (available here https://therideshareguy.com/wp-content/ ... licy-1.pdf), and it seems to tell a different story:

- Page 19: 2. Collision coverage. We will pay for loss caused by collision to a covered vehicle.
- Page 18: Loss Caused By Collision means a loss caused by ... a covered vehicle hitting or being hit by another vehicle or another object; ...

Thus collision coverage pays for ANY collision, whether my fault or not, and whether the other driver is insured or not.

- Page 17 (UM property coverage): We will pay damages for property damage you are legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.

So if you have collision coverage and are hit by an uninsured motorist, what additional benefit does UM property coverage provide? Seems it would cover the collision deductible, that's all. I have both coverages, and the premium for UM property is only $8.54 per year -- which seems in line with it covering only my $2,000 collision deductible. I'm curious what people without collision coverage pay for UM property.

[Edited to add}:
I did a bit more reading of the policy and confirmed that the only benefit of UM property coverage is that it will pay my collision deductible if I'm hit by an at-fault uninsured motorist:

Page 17, Limits and Loss Settlement (UM property coverage): 1. The most we will pay for all property damage as the result of one accident is:
a. the amount of any collision coverage deductible applicable to property damage up to a maximum of $3,500; or
b. $3,500 if there is no collision coverage provided by this policy or any other policy that is applicable to the property damage.
Last edited by Klewles on Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
riverant
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 6:51 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by riverant »

fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yeah, you’re incorrect but I also think you misunderstood your agent.

Collision is ONLY for damage caused to YOUR vehicle. Doesn’t matter who’s at fault

Property damage liability is damage you cause to another persons vehicle or property

Medpay is for immediate payments for yourself and possibly your passengers

Bodily Injury is to pay for injuries you cause to to others

UMBI is to pay for injuries others cause to you IF your injuries exceed THEIR bodily injury limits

For instance, they have 25/50 limits and cause 300k of damages. They’ll pay 25k to you and you have to come up with 225k. Health insurance? Maybe. Certainly not collision coverage. Buy UM
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

TJat wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:18 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yeah, you’re incorrect but I also think you misunderstood your agent.

Collision is ONLY for damage caused to YOUR vehicle. Doesn’t matter who’s at fault

Property damage liability is damage you cause to another persons vehicle or property

Medpay is for immediate payments for yourself and possibly your passengers

Bodily Injury is to pay for injuries you cause to to others

UMBI is to pay for injuries others cause to you IF your injuries exceed THEIR bodily injury limits

For instance, they have 25/50 limits and cause 300k of damages. They’ll pay 25k to you and you have to come up with 225k. Health insurance? Maybe. Certainly not collision coverage. Buy UM
You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.

They claim that if you don't carry property UM, collision will not cover property damage if it is the fault of an uninsured driver.

Frankly every "policy summary" I see doesn't say this. Collision is simply "anything hits you" - but this agent was quite adamant.

There is enough confusion (even on this thread) that I'll get this carrier's specific policy language and review. Maybe it is something unique to them.
User avatar
riverant
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 6:51 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by riverant »

fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am
TJat wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:18 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yeah, you’re incorrect but I also think you misunderstood your agent.

Collision is ONLY for damage caused to YOUR vehicle. Doesn’t matter who’s at fault

Property damage liability is damage you cause to another persons vehicle or property

Medpay is for immediate payments for yourself and possibly your passengers

Bodily Injury is to pay for injuries you cause to to others

UMBI is to pay for injuries others cause to you IF your injuries exceed THEIR bodily injury limits

For instance, they have 25/50 limits and cause 300k of damages. They’ll pay 25k to you and you have to come up with 225k. Health insurance? Maybe. Certainly not collision coverage. Buy UM
You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.

They claim that if you don't carry property UM, collision will not cover property damage if it is the fault of an uninsured driver.

Frankly every "policy summary" I see doesn't say this. Collision is simply "anything hits you" - but this agent was quite adamant.

There is enough confusion (even on this thread) that I'll get this carrier's specific policy language and review. Maybe it is something unique to them.
Ah I crossposted when you clarified that we’re weee only talking about UMPD. In that case, you are correct. Collision will pay for any damage to your car regardless of who is at fault. Typically your insurance will pay out of your collision and pursue subro if you were not at fault. Subro does not affect your coverage

UMPD would just remove the need to pay your deductible and typically is used for parking lot hit and run accidents. In theory collision would pay in that situation but you’ll have more paperwork to show the damage was caused by a car.

what unfortunately is likely is that your agent likely doesn’t understand the coverages. There’s no incentive to push you UMPD, it’s like a 8 dollar coverage.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by JoMoney »

TJat wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:01 am....
what unfortunately is likely is that your agent likely doesn’t understand the coverages. There’s no incentive to push you UMPD, it’s like a 8 dollar coverage.
$8 ... per month...
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
JohnSmith123
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:24 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by JohnSmith123 »

Q: how much UM bodily injury should one get if you have a good health plan? $250k? $1M?
pshonore
Posts: 8212
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:21 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by pshonore »

fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am
TJat wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:18 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yeah, you’re incorrect but I also think you misunderstood your agent.

Collision is ONLY for damage caused to YOUR vehicle. Doesn’t matter who’s at fault

Property damage liability is damage you cause to another persons vehicle or property

Medpay is for immediate payments for yourself and possibly your passengers

Bodily Injury is to pay for injuries you cause to to others

UMBI is to pay for injuries others cause to you IF your injuries exceed THEIR bodily injury limits

For instance, they have 25/50 limits and cause 300k of damages. They’ll pay 25k to you and you have to come up with 225k. Health insurance? Maybe. Certainly not collision coverage. Buy UM
You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.

They claim that if you don't carry property UM, collision will not cover property damage if it is the fault of an uninsured driver.

Frankly every "policy summary" I see doesn't say this. Collision is simply "anything hits you" - but this agent was quite adamant.

There is enough confusion (even on this thread) that I'll get this carrier's specific policy language and review. Maybe it is something unique to them.
Suppose you get in an accident with an uninsured driver and there are passengers in your car who are injured without health insurance and its not your fault. Will your BI liability pay for your passengers injuries? I don't know the answer. Medpay usually would but it typically has low limits.. .
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by quantAndHold »

fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.
Yes, you do. You should read some of Broken Man 1999’s posts about his accident. The TL;DR is that his medical insurance wouldn’t have come close to covering his ongoing needs after the accident.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by JoMoney »

JohnSmith123 wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:17 am Q: how much UM bodily injury should one get if you have a good health plan? $250k? $1M?
When looking at the web-form for my policy, the maximum UMBI I can choose is whatever my BI Liability coverage is set at.
I have no idea if there are any good rules of thumbs or persuasive stories on how to set that. My assumption has usually been that if there's a major accident it's going to need to be covered by other health coverage, and any other amounts from the liable parties insurance might cover a deductible and would be more or less a pain and suffering consolation on top of it.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by JoMoney »

quantAndHold wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:42 am
fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.
Yes, you do. You should read some of Broken Man 1999’s posts about his accident. The TL;DR is that his medical insurance wouldn’t have come close to covering his ongoing needs after the accident.
Anecdotal situations doesn't necessarily make something a "must" in every other situation, especially without having any context of the OPs situation.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

pshonore wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:26 am Suppose you get in an accident with an uninsured driver and there are passengers in your car who are injured without health insurance and its not your fault. Will your BI liability pay for your passengers injuries? I don't know the answer. Medpay usually would but it typically has low limits.. .
In that scenario, the passenger would be out of luck. They could then try to sue me to make it "my fault" in which case, my liability/umbrella would kick in.

Of course, I carry passengers maybe once/year at most, and I don't really associate with people who don't have medical insurance.
User avatar
riverant
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 6:51 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by riverant »

fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:48 am
pshonore wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:26 am Suppose you get in an accident with an uninsured driver and there are passengers in your car who are injured without health insurance and its not your fault. Will your BI liability pay for your passengers injuries? I don't know the answer. Medpay usually would but it typically has low limits.. .
In that scenario, the passenger would be out of luck. They could then try to sue me to make it "my fault" in which case, my liability/umbrella would kick in.

Of course, I carry passengers maybe once/year at most, and I don't really associate with people who don't have medical insurance.
Penny wise pound foolish in my opinion.
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

JoMoney wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:45 am
quantAndHold wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:42 am
fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.
Yes, you do. You should read some of Broken Man 1999’s posts about his accident. The TL;DR is that his medical insurance wouldn’t have come close to covering his ongoing needs after the accident.
Anecdotal situations doesn't necessarily make something a "must" in every other situation, especially without having any context of the OPs situation.
Yes, the limits are so low it would make no difference to me. $1M is about the max you can get, and it would change nothing in my life other than the personal satisfaction of receiving a check. Now if I could get $100M for the same price.. I'd sign up with that instantly - very low probability, but at least a very high payout.

I insure for 1) things that are LOW probability but be devastating (hence high liability limits and umbrella) and things that are a HIGH probability and would be inconveniently annoying (why I carry comprehensive/collision - I've no interest in dealing with another carrier, uninsured motorists, etc. And a car crash is the most likely thing to happen.)

UMBI doesn't fall under either of those for me. Same with $5000 of medical payment coverage, "glass" coverage, gap insurance, etc etc.
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by quantAndHold »

JoMoney wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:45 am
quantAndHold wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:42 am
fortunefavored wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:25 am You are also confusing the two: bodily injury UM and property UM. I have no need for bodily injury UM.
Yes, you do. You should read some of Broken Man 1999’s posts about his accident. The TL;DR is that his medical insurance wouldn’t have come close to covering his ongoing needs after the accident.
Anecdotal situations doesn't necessarily make something a "must" in every other situation, especially without having any context of the OPs situation.
Agreed, but his situation points out a major hole in OP’s plan, which is that regular medical insurance covers your medical needs, but not your other ongoing expenses if you get disabled. The other guy’s liability insurance covers that.

I would put uninsured motorist in the same category as an umbrella policy. Low probability, but high impact if it happens. For what it costs, it seems a no brainer to have it.
moi
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:33 am

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by moi »

fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Funny you brought this up. I was going through my insurance policies yesterday. With GEICO I do carry uninsured motorist insurance. When I asked about liability coverage, they said my bodily injury coverage was $100,000 and $300,00. When I looked at my uninsured property damage, the line items said "insured rejects." The agent said I carry collision coverage already, even if uninsured motorist hits me the collision is still covered, so they automatically lists UM property as "insured rejects" because that's double charging.

I now look at another quote from State Farm, it DOES charge me for UM property damage, at $11 per month (two cars). I didn't even notice it. I'm planning to stay with GEICO though since it's $500 cheaper annually.
Best, | moi
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

Follow up on this.. after getting all the policy documents, and pushing on the agent again.. they went back to underwriting and confirmed my understanding is correct: regardless of UM coverage, collision insurance covers your vehicle (although you have to pay the deductible if the person who hit you is uninsured.)

The agent claims after 14 years of being an agent, no one ever dug into this UM topic before. Wild.

I'm glad I have not been in error for the past 30+ years of driving.
exodusNH
Posts: 10350
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:21 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by exodusNH »

JoMoney wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:43 am
JohnSmith123 wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:17 am Q: how much UM bodily injury should one get if you have a good health plan? $250k? $1M?
When looking at the web-form for my policy, the maximum UMBI I can choose is whatever my BI Liability coverage is set at.
I have no idea if there are any good rules of thumbs or persuasive stories on how to set that. My assumption has usually been that if there's a major accident it's going to need to be covered by other health coverage, and any other amounts from the liable parties insurance might cover a deductible and would be more or less a pain and suffering consolation on top of it.
Health insurance will pay to patch you up.

After that, it's the liability insurance that would cover loss of income, home modifications, home care, or the need to get assisted living.

Proper physical therapy can make all the difference in your recovery. You can bet that your health insurance is going to argue every little charge and force you to exhaust cheaper, less effective treatments first. (Either wasting valuable time or jeopardizing full recovery.) A payout from the liability insurance wouldn't have those restrictions.

It doesn't take a catastrophic car accident to cause lasting damage.

A friend's wife was in an accident coming off the highway onto a 30 mph road. It's a sharp curve. She wasn't going highway speed during the merge. However the collision happened, she bounced up, hit her head on the (inside) roof of the car, and wound up with a pretty bad concussion.

The injury turned out to be more severe than immediately obvious. Aside from the typical concussion symptoms and associated recovery time, she incurred brain damage. Over the next few months, her personality changed. She was combative. She had to leave her well-paid job. She wound up getting divorced because she was certain her husband was cheating on her. (He wasn't.)
Topic Author
fortunefavored
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by fortunefavored »

exodusNH wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:24 pm
JoMoney wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:43 am
JohnSmith123 wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:17 am Q: how much UM bodily injury should one get if you have a good health plan? $250k? $1M?
When looking at the web-form for my policy, the maximum UMBI I can choose is whatever my BI Liability coverage is set at.
I have no idea if there are any good rules of thumbs or persuasive stories on how to set that. My assumption has usually been that if there's a major accident it's going to need to be covered by other health coverage, and any other amounts from the liable parties insurance might cover a deductible and would be more or less a pain and suffering consolation on top of it.
Health insurance will pay to patch you up.

After that, it's the liability insurance that would cover loss of income, home modifications, home care, or the need to get assisted living.

Proper physical therapy can make all the difference in your recovery. You can bet that your health insurance is going to argue every little charge and force you to exhaust cheaper, less effective treatments first. (Either wasting valuable time or jeopardizing full recovery.) A payout from the liability insurance wouldn't have those restrictions.

It doesn't take a catastrophic car accident to cause lasting damage.

A friend's wife was in an accident coming off the highway onto a 30 mph road. It's a sharp curve. She wasn't going highway speed during the merge. However the collision happened, she bounced up, hit her head on the (inside) roof of the car, and wound up with a pretty bad concussion.

The injury turned out to be more severe than immediately obvious. Aside from the typical concussion symptoms and associated recovery time, she incurred brain damage. Over the next few months, her personality changed. She was combative. She had to leave her well-paid job. She wound up getting divorced because she was certain her husband was cheating on her. (He wasn't.)
$250K of UM barely going to put a dent in that level of seriousness (like JoeMoney, that is the max I can select.)

I guess that is why I remain dubious of UM. Sure, $250K is nice.. but in a truly "my life is forever altered" scenario, then $250K is not going to matter to a Boglehead worth a few million already. If I could get say.. $5M for the same cost, I'd be very open to that. That would definitely help in the scenario you laid out.

For any UM claim, you're also fighting with your OWN insurance company to pay out. That puts all the balance of power on the insurance company side. Unlike a liability scenario, where they're going after someone else.
scrabbler1
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:39 pm

Re: CA auto insurance: Collision vs. UM property

Post by scrabbler1 »

TJat wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:18 am
fortunefavored wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am Wow, this is a new one to me.. I'm doing the semi-annual insurance quote dance.. historically I have not carried UM (un/underinsured motorist) Property or UM Bodily Injury because I also carry Collision, which should cover me in the case of an accident with an uninsured driver (minus deductible.)

However one carrier insists that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist without the UI rider, collision will NOT cover me. Collision will only cover me if it is MY fault.

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm awaiting the written policy but I am curious if I have been misunderstanding this all these years.. or this agent is befuddled (but quite adamant!)
Yeah, you’re incorrect but I also think you misunderstood your agent.

Collision is ONLY for damage caused to YOUR vehicle. Doesn’t matter who’s at fault

Property damage liability is damage you cause to another persons vehicle or property

Medpay is for immediate payments for yourself and possibly your passengers

Bodily Injury is to pay for injuries you cause to to others

UMBI is to pay for injuries others cause to you IF your injuries exceed THEIR bodily injury limits

For instance, they have 25/50 limits and cause 300k of damages. They’ll pay 25k to you and you have to come up with 225k. Health insurance? Maybe. Certainly not collision coverage. Buy UM
I think you meant to write UIMBI, not UMBI. UIMBI, or Underinsured Motorists Bodily Injury, protects you in case the other, at-fault driver has some BI liability insurance but not enough to pay your damages. UMBI, Uninsured Motorists Bodily Injury, protects you in case the other, at-fault driver has ZERO BI liability insurance.

UIMBI is a tricky coverage. It varies some from state to state in how it applies. I worked in the actuarial field for 23 years, specializing in personal auto insurance, so I worked on the pricing for this coverage a lot (and I'm not prepared to hold an online class in UIMBI coverage pricing LOL!).

I agree that Collision coverage applies no matter who is at fault. In the case of an accident between 2 drivers, Collision will pay for each driver's own car. Then, the insurance companies will fight it out to try to recover their Collision payouts from the other driver's company vis their PD coverages.

UMPD varies a lot by state, too, when it is even offered. A manager at my old company published (for public consumption) a document recently about UM and UIM coverages so I looked up California. UMPD in that state is offered only when the insured rejects Collision, so not many people buy this coverage.
Post Reply