Just looking for a logical explanation here and hoping someone can explain the reasoning behind the classification. I recently had an accident where I was driving in the middle lane of a highway and an object came sliding towards me from the right lane. It passed between my front tires, but it kept moving and I ran over it with my left rear tire. It was big enough to damage not only the tire, but punched right through the rim as well, causing $565 of damage. My insurance company explained that because it was not a flying object it has to be collision and not comprehensive. I found the section of my policy that explains that comp covers objects in the air and that objects on the ground are considered collision. But I don't understand why an object in motion, on the ground, that is unavoidable can be considered a different coverage than one in the air. I brought up with several insurance people that apparently an object thrown through the window of my car would be comp but the same object that bounces once would be collision and they said that is correct. I don't want to argue the decision (I've already lost) but I'd like to know if anyone can explain the underlying REASON behind this. In other words, if both objects are coming at my car and I cannot avoid them, why is there a difference between flying and bouncing? Hope someone can give a good explanation - I'm very frustrated that I am going to be over $400 out of pocket on this.... Thanks!