A Finnish family faces a baffling insurance denial after hitting a deer on a dark country road. Petri Kuusisto swerved to avoid the animal but still made contact on October 10. His car ended up in a ditch with significant damage.
Petri described the incident. A deer jumped onto the road and stood in his headlights. He tried to avoid it but the animal was too centered. The collision caused him to veer into a ditch. The vehicle's oil pan ruptured and safety switches prevented restarting.
He immediately called emergency services after confirming his children were unharmed. Rescue services arrived at 9:18 PM. His wife Susanna came to collect the family from the accident site.
The family followed their Pop Insurance policy procedures exactly. They ordered a tow truck as required and filed the claim promptly. Three weeks later, they received a rejection letter.
Susanna expresses frustration with the decision. She notes both rescue services and police documented this as a deer collision. The police report specifically mentions deer hair found on the bumper.
Local news outlets reported the deer died in the accident. Yet Pop Insurance maintains the damage resulted from swerving, not direct impact.
The insurance company's rejection letter states their investigation found no clear evidence of animal collision. They noted empty front tires, oil leakage, and door scratches. The letter claims these indicate swerving damage rather than direct impact.
Pop Insurance's S-level coverage includes animal collision protection but not swerving damage. The higher L-level policy would cover both scenarios.
A company service director explained their general practices without commenting on this specific case. He said about 97% of animal damage claims get approved. The remaining cases lack clear collision evidence.
He described the distinction between coverage types. Pure animal collisions get covered under animal insurance. Pure swerving incidents would require collision coverage. Mixed situations create interpretation challenges.
The family now plans to appeal the decision. They question how anyone could prove collision more clearly than with police documentation and physical evidence.
Insurance claim disputes often hinge on policy wording rather than actual events. This case shows how technical distinctions can override common sense understanding of accidents.