TD Insurance saying tire blowout is an at-fault accident

[Dethrone]

I'm shopping around for auto insurance quotes because I want my own policy as I'm currently under my dad's policy at TD. All the rates I'm getting are very high due to a single vehicle accident in 2014 that's affecting my premiums. It's currently stated that I'm at-fault when all these years I thought it was not. Only now after calling insurance companies to get quotes have I realized the accident is at-fault. Here is what happened, and mirrors what I put on the police report:

I was driving back home on the highway going the speed limit at 110km/h towards Chestermere, AB. My driver-side tire suddenly blew and the separated rubber was rotating around the rim, flipping and damaging the fender, headlight, hood, and front bumper. I swerved a bit, but gained control of my vehicle. I slowed down while pulling onto the shoulder and stopped safely. My vehicle was totalled and was instantly a write-off. No injuries, no further damage, just a single-vehicle accident that didn't cause any other problems.

I called an adjuster from TD Insurance asking why this would be considered at-fault, and the lady said it is because there is no way the tire could have caused all that damage, and that I must've hit something while swerving to cause damage to the front bumper and headlight. This baffles me because I was going 110km/h when my tire popped, and the vicious rotation of the blown tire absolutely caused all that damage to the front-driver side of my 1999 Toyota Corolla. No where in the police report did I mention I hit anything, and the cop signed it off no problem.

I don't understand why the adjuster was arguing with me about this, and pretty much inferring that I hit something. I'm very confused on why they see it this way. Is there something I'm missing about insurance policies? Is there anything I can do to argue that this is not-at-fault, and that it should not be affecting my premiums?

[rx7boi]

@Masked_Bandit

[Disoblige]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't understand why the adjuster was arguing with me about this, and pretty much inferring that I hit something. I'm very confused on why they see it this way. Is there something I'm missing about insurance policies? Is there anything I can do to argue that this is not-at-fault, and that it should not be affecting my premiums?

Could you have just hung up, called back, and talked to someone else at TD? Sometimes you just get a total bitch who lacks basic common sense and isn't worth the time to argue with.

[Dethrone]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Could you have just hung up, called back, and talked to someone else at TD? Sometimes you just get a total bitch who lacks basic common sense and isn't worth the time to argue with.

Yeah, I'm definitely going to try calling again. I think I got stuck on trying to convince the adjuster otherwise and it turned into an argument about physics. Just wanted to hear people's opinions on this situation regarding at-fault/not-at-fault.

[Masked Bandit]

This is one of those shit situations that insurance fault doesn't really match up with logic and common-sense. A tire blowout like that isn't caused by the driver, no dispute there, but it still gets filed as an at-fault claim. Sorry OP, you're pretty much stuck with it.

[Dethrone]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is one of those shit situations that insurance fault doesn't really match up with logic and common-sense. A tire blowout like that isn't caused by the driver, no dispute there, but it still gets filed as an at-fault claim. Sorry OP, you're pretty much stuck with it.

That's really unfortunate. Would you recommend calling again to see if another adjuster would be more reasonable? Accidents affect your rates for 7 years?

[revelations]

Bill, would this be the same as a leaking fuel line causing a fire?

Its the same scenario - the vehicle self destructed.

Also, would a dash cam made any difference to counter the absurd claim of striking something?

[spikerS]

I am curious. Did you have full coverage on a 15-year-old corolla that insurance paid you out on it? just seems odd...

[ercchry]

Now you know it’s not worth making a claim on an old corolla!

You are probably best off with TD, as they should have some sort of accident forgiveness if that’s the only claim you’ve made

[rx7boi]

Surely there's a way to dispute this. Don't insurance companies try to pull the same shit when you hit an animal?

[ExtraSlow]

Lots of companies have some kind of accident forgiveness, but don't think that's free, you end up paying for it one way or the other.

[never]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely there's a way to dispute this. Don't insurance companies try to pull the same shit when you hit an animal?

Not in my experience after hitting deer.

[Nufy]

The Deer hit you...

[ShermanEF9]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely there's a way to dispute this. Don't insurance companies try to pull the same shit when you hit an animal?

if its alive when you hit it you're okay... if its dead, its at fault.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

if its alive when you hit it you're okay... if its dead, its at fault.

the dead deer is at fault?

[DboyNismo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

the dead deer is at fault?

IIRC from my time as an agent, if the deer is dead on the road and you hit it, you are at fault as you could've avoided it (just like any other static object). If it was alive then it can be a comprehensive claim and no insurance premium increase.

As for OP - it's a shitty situation, but since there was a payout and a single vehicle "accident" while you were driving, you are deemed at fault. Insurance company has to recoup that lost premium somehow.

I could be mistaken though, been a few years since I was in that business.

[ExtraSlow]

I was being facetious about the dead deer.

Am I correct in summarizing that a single vehicle incident "while driving" will always be at fault, since there's not any "no fault" possibility for that type of claim?

[tonytiger55]

Just out of curiosity OP. How old were your tires..?

[DboyNismo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was being facetious about the dead deer.

Am I correct in summarizing that a single vehicle incident "while driving" will always be at fault, since there's not any "no fault" possibility for that type of claim?

If the incident falls under a comprehensive claim (i.e. a hit and run that you report within 24 hours) then no change to your insurance - because comprehensive. Anything else that is single party and not comprehensive, but insurance pays out, would probably be at fault.

@Mas kedbandit would have the best colour on this though.

[Masked Bandit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's really unfortunate. Would you recommend calling again to see if another adjuster would be more reasonable? Accidents affect your rates for 7 years?

It's not going to make a difference.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bill, would this be the same as a leaking fuel line causing a fire?

Its the same scenario - the vehicle self destructed.

Also, would a dash cam made any difference to counter the absurd claim of striking something?

Damage by fire falls under the comprehensive portion of your policy and is always not at fault, no worries there.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now you know it’s not worth making a claim on an old corolla!

You are probably best off with TD, as they should have some sort of accident forgiveness if that’s the only claim you’ve made

All insurance companies have accident forgiveness, assuming you qualify.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely there's a way to dispute this. Don't insurance companies try to pull the same shit when you hit an animal?

Nope, hitting an animal (deer as discussed) is not at fault.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

if its alive when you hit it you're okay... if its dead, its at fault.

True story! Sad, but true.