just what you are required to have by law -- and you're allowed to roll the dice on the uninsured guy hitting you, because it's your car. The same thing applise to comprehensive coverage -- which is for is for the no fault stuff, like a tree falling on your car in the drive way, or a rock chipping your windshield. The reason you don't want to claim you were at fault is because it will affect your rates and insurability, you might actually be admitting that you committed a crime (depending on the incident), and the insurer might very well catch you -- they're really, really good and knowing what happened and who's at fault -- and then they do not have to pay any damages, even those covered, because you don't have to pay a fraudulent claim. That makes sense about the insurability and premium impacts. It still just seems a bit odd. Not illegal or immoral or unethical. Just... odd. Again, it seems to create some strange incentives. However, if it is indeed true that "they're really, really good [at] knowing what happened and who's at fault", then it is a bit problematic when they go out of their way to argue about possible alternative scenarios, such as it seems they are doing in this case. I realize there is a difference between saying, "We know it happened this way but let's pretend it happened another way because that is advantageous to us," and "It almost assuredly