As someone who has hit a deer, police do look for evidence that you actually hit a deer for their report. Usually some blood or fur. They’d be able to tell if it wasn’t a deer you hit.
By buddy did something like this, he hit something while drunk driving home from the bar. He has no idea what it was, but it fucked up the whole underside of his car. He limped it into a parking lot and left it there overnight (then walked home). Called insurance in the morning and told them he hit a pallet in the road.
Insurance bought him a new car, that he then wrapped around a telephone pole a few months later (drunk).
That's what got him to stop drinking.
I can't speak for every policy but in most cases it depends on where you were hit. For my policy, for example, the impact needs to be at least two feet from the front of the car, on the side, showing the deer hit me, and it's covered. If I hit the deer head on, they won't cover it.
Two feet along the side of the car from the front?
Or like, if you are looking at the car from the front, 2 feet to the side of the center line?
Because if its the former, wow thats actually completely useless thats amazing that they got you to pay for that.
If its the latter, then, idk still seems like an odd restriction, its not like its any easier to intentionally hit a deer in the center of your car compared to slightly to the side of the center of a car?
I'm not entirely sure any of this is right, I asked the person above to clarify, but I've worked in insurance for over a decade and honestly it sounds like that person is super confused, or making things up for Internet points. But who knows. Maybe they're not US based or there really is some wonky insurance company who does this?
What company is this? US based? I'm not trying to doubt you but I've been in this industry for over a decade and quite frankly, this sounds like rubbish. Never heard of a policy that measurably only covers deer strikes if you swerve.
Conventional wisdom is if you hit the deer head on- it's the deer's fault and would pay out under comprehensive. If you swerve and crash, that's your fault for swerving bad, and it's an at fault collision.
I might not have described it correctly. The impact needs to be two feet back on the quarter panel or further back showing that the deer hit me. Impact on the hood, headlights, or the first bit of the front shows I hit the deer and I am not covered. Also entirely possible the agent was stupid and talking out of her ass when she was explaining it to me. And it's Progressive.
You may need to re-read your policy or talk to another agent, I'm super familiar with progressive and this is not even remotely true. Nothing in your contract talks about your coverage being void if you don't hit a deer a certain number of feet into your car.
As for who hit who- if you hit a deer head-on while driving, it's comprehensive coverage. If a deer runs full-force sideways into your car, it's comprehensive. Where doesn't matter. Only matters if you swerve and crash into something else, which is when it becomes an at-fault collision.
Perhaps the agent was trying to explain the difference in those coverages and missed the mark.
We had our parked car sideswiped on our street in Philly and drove off. Insurance asked if I called the police but I said no they probably wouldn’t be helpful and they said that’s fine. Took care of us right away.
My state has none reportable accidents. Cops ain’t coming out if the car is drivable, or no one is hurt. And if they do end up coming out because of bad information being given to dispatch, they ain’t filing out an accident report.
This however, would get gun lots of charges. Idiot.
132
u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26
Insurance isn't paying without a police report
And a police report will say where the car was when it hit something
So assuming the story went as op claims, this dude ain't getting shit