"Jack, I'll disagree with you on this one."
You are always welcome to disagree with me.
"I'd offer that the truck, plane or space shuttle falling from above would be both comp or collision, with the benefit of deductible etc. decided in the policyholder's favor."
Here I have the benefit of inside experience. Vehicle to vehicle impact is always ruled collision. I recall checking case law on this before I retired. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that service anymore.
Vehicles have been adequately defined by case law. I'll admit, however, that the MIR or Spacelab falling on a car may still have to be adjudicated since both are designed to hold people and have some method of propulsion. I would lean toward other than collision since the primary purpose of the items is not transportation of passengers. Dorothy's house falling on the witch's car, however, is definitely other than collision.
"If a wall of a building fell onto a parked car it would meet your definition of falling object, but in the rare event that the policy provided collision, but not comp., then you would need to also consider the loss as a collision claim. "
But let's clear up the coverages first.
Auto policies typically define Collision as the upset of the covered vehicle or its impact with another vehicle or object.
I don't think there should be any dispute that vehicle to vehicle is collision.
Although I admit there could be some ambiguity with regard to impact with an object.
But it would be rare that the ambiguity would come into play. Impact with a stationary object is collision. Impact with a moving object is likely to be collision unless that moving object is defined by the policy as other than collision.
Other than collision (the word comprehensive is no longer used in any policy that I know of) is typically defined in the policy as caused by:
1-Missiles or falling objects
3-Theft or larceny
4-Explosion or earthquake
6-Hail, water, flood
7-Malicious mischief, vandalism
8-Riot, civil commotion
9-Contact with bird or animal
10-Breakage of glass (and here the policy holder is given the option of treating glass breakage as collision if the loss was caused by collision.)
"The mechanism of the damage is the key to deciding comp or collision. A missile is "thrown" thru the air."
The key to deciding collision or other than collision is first and always the policy unless the policy fails in some way. Then the mechanism of the damage is considered.
Doesn't matter if the missile is thrown. Loss caused by missiles is defined as other than collision.
The phrase "caused by" is also critical in determing which coverage applies. Take the case of a missile (ICBM) stored on Uncle Sam's lot and a car hits it. The loss wasn't caused by the missile (the missile was just sitting there minding its own business) it was caused by the car hitting the missile, hence collision. If the car was sitting near the missile and the missile fell over then the loss is other than collision by definition: 1-missile or falling objects.
In the case of your falling brick wall, the operative word is falling so the bricks are falling objects as defined by the policy regardless of what made them fall, EXCEPT if the car hit the brick wall and caused the bricks to fall. Then it would be collision.
"A falling object is propelled by gravity."
Gravity doesn't "propel" anything. Gravity is a force that attracts. In order to be attracted by gravity an object first has to be exposed to the force of gravity. But that gets us away from the insurance discussion.
"In the instant case, damage was caused when the 5th wheel somehow parted mate with the king pin.
The poster describes the trailer "rolling".
This is clearly only a collision loss."
That's what I said.
- The right of the people
- to keep and bear arms,
- shall not be infringed.