Re: windshield pitting

[Ken <kkeith@qnet.com>]

Orin Eman wrote:
> 
> > "Just" pitted?  If you have comprehensive insurance, isn't it supposed
> > to pay for damages to your vehicle?  I consider pitting damage?  It
> > makes sense to me.
> 
> The policy pobably says glass breakage, not damage.  That, IMO would
> exclude pitting.

That would make sense.  I should see what my policy says.  Personally,
I'd prolly pay out of pocket to replace it, in either case.
 
> BTW: I don't buy the argument of 'it's cheaper to replace the
> windshield rather than pay a claim because you couldn't see'.
> Yeah, and they should replace your brakes too when they are worn?
> It _is_ your responsibility to make sure the car is safe to drive
> before driving it.

Good point.  If it were otherwise, I'd want my insurance to pay for my 
Brembos, MetalMasters, and Z-rated low profile tires, 'coz they're safer 
than OE!

Ken