Ohio Deer Collisions Prompt Claims Increase

November 8, 2004

  • November 9, 2004 at 9:59 am
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybee there’s something to be said for Bubba having that rollbar on the front of his truck.

    Now we just need to convince the folks with Geo Metros to get them. :)

  • November 9, 2004 at 12:13 pm
    MIke Mattson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Deer Have right of way.

  • November 9, 2004 at 2:52 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Like to see the Ohio BMV add deer hit under the BMV – Motor vehicle report. As it is now all it says is accident.

  • November 9, 2004 at 3:33 am
    Ben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    MVR may only show accident, but Claims report will show comp claim, ie not at fault.

  • January 13, 2005 at 8:30 am
    Eric says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Points of clarification: a large % of deer strikes are not reported to the BMV, making such stats significantly under-reported through such agencies. Insurance carriers typically handle collisions with animals as a no-fault comp loss, and the frequency and severity of such loss types is/should be available though ISO and Fast Track reporting.

    My personal view and experience on front brush guards: they usually prevent a significant amount of damage when such strikes occur, and may also reduce the frequency and severity of collsion losses, as they can take a hit far better than a typical OEM bumper. THey should be “automatically covered” without endorsement.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*