Vehicle Through Ice

[rousemark]

Saw the thread title and thought that maybe ICE was now required to give illegal aliens a vehicle in which they could disappear into the US...

 

[adjusterjack]

Yeah, like "Better Living Through Chemistry."

 

[VolAgent]

If insurance excluded stupidity, that would eliminate the vast majority of auto claims. Just be prepared to pay a price for your stupidity in the form of a deductible and higher rates after a claim.

 

[djs]

Here's the good news.... well, sort of.....

Illegal does not stop insurance from paying. Face it, something slightly not right about driving is what causes most accidents:
- Run a red light (but I swear it was green)
- Run a stop sign
- Speeding
- Didn't check traffic
etc.....

Insurance still pays.

Falling through ice should be a comprehensive claim (water damage). Unless there is something specific in the policy, I'm sure they will pay. There would be no 'freezing' exclusion, since freezing wasn't the problem, unfreezing is. Of course, falling through ice isn't what that was about anyway.

I don't see how this would be different from having a river suddenly go through your car in AZ or CA.

Of course, I could be wrong, but it sort of goes back to insurance companies assume you will take care of your stuff. You can always crash your own car if you want to, the assumption in insurance is that you don't want to. Deductibles are designed to make it painful enough not to.

 

[rousemark]

I suppose it would be covered either by the "upset" peril or "water."

However, there's this exclusion:



However, assuming that it is covered, you would likely be surcharged for an at-fault accident and possibly non-renewed when your insurance underwriter learns that you do this regularly, thus driving your rates to the stratosphere when you buy new coverage.

I suggest you discontinue the practice if you want to preserve competitively priced insurance.

Maybe get a light weight inexpensive snow-mobile.

Like Fed Up says: Stupidity is covered.

But not without consequences.

A comprehension claim should not be considered an "at fault accident"..

 

[VolAgent]

A comprehension claim should not be considered an "at fault accident"..

They aren't. But "upset" is under collision. So it would depend upon if the adjuster determined the vehicle was upset, then an at-fault collision claim. If the adjuster determined the cause was water, then comprehensive.

My guess would be the vehicle was "upset" as it didn't suffer the water damage until it feel through the ice. Not something that really happens here, so I've never put any thought into it.

 

[adjusterjack]

A comprehension claim should not be considered an "at fault accident"..

If one drives a two ton (or better) vehicle out on to the ice, it sure should be.

And since there are no statutory or contractual provisions (that I know of) that prohibit an at-fault surcharge, it would be up to the insurance company.

 

[Delta75]

I'm in MN and love hard water fishing. Most of the people that go through the ice do something stupid - drive their rigs out before there is at least 12 inches on the lake, drive over channels, or drive off the beaten path on a lake they don't know well (there could be springs or rock piles that heat up that create thin spots). I've seen people drive out on way too little ice with their 1 ton and Ice Castle (Ice Castle Fish Houses | You can camp in a fish house but you can't fish in a camper.).

I don't do anything with auto coverage - the rumors I've heard is if you go through the ice, insurance will pay for the vehicle damage, but they won't pay for the expensive vehicle recovery and environmental fees. Thankfully, I haven't had to find out if that's true.