[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: windshield pitting
Orin Eman wrote:
> > "Just" pitted? If you have comprehensive insurance, isn't it supposed
> > to pay for damages to your vehicle? I consider pitting damage? It
> > makes sense to me.
> The policy pobably says glass breakage, not damage. That, IMO would
> exclude pitting.
That would make sense. I should see what my policy says. Personally,
I'd prolly pay out of pocket to replace it, in either case.
> BTW: I don't buy the argument of 'it's cheaper to replace the
> windshield rather than pay a claim because you couldn't see'.
> Yeah, and they should replace your brakes too when they are worn?
> It _is_ your responsibility to make sure the car is safe to drive
> before driving it.
Good point. If it were otherwise, I'd want my insurance to pay for my
Brembos, MetalMasters, and Z-rated low profile tires, 'coz they're safer