Uninsured doesn’t fully cover my hit-and-run… what do I do?

So, someone hit my front bumper while I was at work and then took off without anyone seeing. I’ve talked to a few people, and they said their hit-and-run was fully covered under uninsured motorist insurance. But now USAA is telling me that’s not the case. Who’s right? And if USAA is wrong, what can I do about it?

Edits:

State where the hit happened: MD
Insurance: NC, USAA, and I have uninsured motorist coverage (UM).
Not Fully Covered: I have to pay a deductible, even though they said I’m not at fault, and I included a police report.

Hit-and-run: The driver wasn’t identified. They took off while no one was around to see.

This is only the second time in over 10 years of driving that I’ve needed to use insurance. The first time, the other driver was uninsured, and everything was fully covered with no deductible. So, I’m confused why this is different now.

What exactly did USAA say? ‘Not fully covered’ can mean a bunch of different things.

Zen said:
What exactly did USAA say? ‘Not fully covered’ can mean a bunch of different things.

They probably told OP that uninsured motorist insurance only covers injuries, not damage to the car.

@Rory
Yep, OP might have uninsured motorist (UM) for bodily injuries but not uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD). Just a guess.

Aubrey said:
@Rory
Yep, OP might have uninsured motorist (UM) for bodily injuries but not uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD). Just a guess.

Or it could be the deductible. A lot of people get upset when they realize they have to pay a deductible, even if it wasn’t their fault.

Aubrey said:
@Rory
Yep, OP might have uninsured motorist (UM) for bodily injuries but not uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD). Just a guess.

Or maybe OP has UMPD but is in a state that requires the hit-and-run driver to be identified before the policy kicks in.

Were your coworkers talking about uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD)? That coverage might kick in if you don’t have collision insurance, but it depends on your state and policy. Did you file a police report? That’s usually required.

Was the other car identified? If not, uninsured motorist (UM) probably won’t apply for property damage. Otherwise, people could try to claim it for any random collision.

Archer said:
Was the other car identified? If not, uninsured motorist (UM) probably won’t apply for property damage. Otherwise, people could try to claim it for any random collision.

That depends on the state. I’ve had two hit-and-runs where UMPD fully covered it.

@Sage
California would be in chaos if that were allowed here :laughing:.

@Sage
True, about a dozen states allow UMPD for hit-and-run claims.

Can you tell us how the conversation with USAA went? Did you file a claim and get denied, or were you just asking a ‘what if’ question? It feels like there’s something missing here.

In North Carolina, uninsured motorist coverage is used when the other driver doesn’t have insurance, not for hit-and-runs. Hit-and-runs are filed under collision coverage.

It depends on the state. In California, for instance, you can’t use uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD) unless the driver is identified as uninsured. Without that, you’d have to use your collision coverage if you have it.

Uninsured motorist (UM) isn’t the same as uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD). Different coverage. No one’s lying to you, it’s just a misunderstanding. I’d trust the insurance company over random people.

Do you have uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD) coverage or just bodily injury (UM)?

UM only covers injuries. You need to specifically have UMPD. Do you?

Have you checked what your policy says? The details should be in there.

What state are you in, and how much is the damage? Some states have limits on how much UMPD will pay.

Justice said:
What state are you in, and how much is the damage? Some states have limits on how much UMPD will pay.

California caps UMPD at $3,500 for hit-and-runs.