QuestionLets say I am in the US, and I have a car with only liability coverage.
Lets also say I park my car on a hill in neutral with only the parking brake holding it, or only in "Park" (AT)/gear (MT) without the parking brake set.
Lets then say that for some reason there was a failure, and the car rolled into my neighbors garage door destroying it.
In any of the variations of the aforementioned situations, could my auto insurance provider refuse to cover the damage to the neighbors garage door, leaving me with the repair bill, by claiming that I was negligent because I didn't set both the parking brake and the car into park/gear?
I'm not really interested in the probability that they would refuse to cover the damage to the neighbor, but more interested in if it is in fact possible for an auto insurance provider in the US to refuse to cover the damage to the neighbor (no matter how low a probability it may be).
Answer Hello Catherine,
Does the law in NC require that you must park on hills with the parking brake engaged? Or that the car cannot be in neutral with the parking brake engaged? And which one was it?
How does the carrier know under which conditions your car was parked? Did they send a mechanical expert to the scene to evaluate your car? If so, who was that expert? What tests did they perform? How were they able to determine if the car was in park or if it was in neutral?
Did you violate any traffic laws? If so, which ones? Were you charged? What did the court determine? What proof was there to substantiate either that you were in neutral or in park - with or without the parking brake engaged?
Where in your policy does it state how you have to park in order to receive policy benefits? Was that policy cited in the denial?
Absurd?
Not as absurd as an irrational,unsupported denial to avoid payment of a claim.
Speaking hypothetically, of course. In the US, of course.
