Root claim V763L9NE · State Farm claim 27-0K3R-968
The case
A parked, unoccupied 2023 Tesla Model X was struck in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 19, 2026. Fault is not reasonably disputed. Payment is.
Facts at a glance
At the scene, the at-fault driver provided State Farm information. Police were contacted but advised they were too busy to respond; no police report was prepared. The claimant cooperated with the investigation and provided requested information.
Chronology
-
In Omaha, the at-fault driver backed a Kia Sportage into the claimant’s parked and unoccupied Tesla Model X. State Farm information was provided at the scene.
-
The claimant cooperated with the claim investigation and provided the information requested.
-
State Farm advised that the Kia was not a covered vehicle under the at-fault driver’s State Farm policy because the Kia belonged to another person (the named insured on a different policy). State Farm stated that it located an active Root Insurance policy covering the Kia and concluded that Root was the responsible insurer.
-
The claim was presented to Root under claim number V763L9NE. Root claims adjuster Johanna Harper verbally informed the claimant that Root was denying the claim because the at-fault driver was not listed as a driver on the Root policy. During that conversation, Ms. Harper also confirmed that the vehicle’s insured had authorized the at-fault driver to operate the Kia.
-
Root issued a written coverage determination the same day. The letter states only that coverage will not apply because “The driver involved in the above noticed loss does not meet the definition of an insured as defined by the policy.†It does not quote that definition, attach the relevant policy pages, or address the confirmed authorization to drive. The letter cites statute of limitations expiration on July 19, 2030. See exhibit below.
-
Complaints regarding conflicting coverage denials were submitted to the Nebraska Department of Insurance and the Better Business Bureau of the Midwest Plains. The Tesla remained unrepaired; no estimate had yet been obtained at the time of the complaint letter.
Two denials, one unpaid victim
State Farm’s position
- The Kia was not covered under the at-fault driver’s State Farm policy.
- State Farm identified an active Root policy on the Kia.
- State Farm directed responsibility to Root.
Root’s position
- Verbal (Harper): driver not listed; permission to drive confirmed.
- Written (July 31): driver “does not meet the definition of an insured.â€
- No quoted policy definition, omnibus clause, or exclusion text provided.
Based on the available facts: the at-fault driver is not alleged to be a regular or permanent operator of the Kia, and maintains a separately insured vehicle elsewhere. The facts indicate occasional, permissive use of an actively insured vehicle—not an undisclosed household vehicle arrangement. In the claimant’s view, repeating that the driver is not an “insured as defined by the policyâ€â€”without quoting that definition or explaining why authorized permissive use fails it—is not an adequate coverage explanation.
Exhibit · Root claim V763L9NE
The written determination
Root’s July 31, 2026 letter (policy Q24PBM) is the carrier’s written statement of denial. The named insured’s identity is redacted on this site. The operative sentence is a single conclusion without the policy text it invokes:
The driver involved in the above noticed loss does not meet the definition of an insured as defined by the policy Root Insurance Co. letter · July 31, 2026 · Claim V763L9NE
What Root still has not provided
A one-sentence conclusion is not a complete coverage analysis. Root still has not provided the claimant with:
- The policy’s definition of “insured,†quoted in full
- The omnibus / permissive-use language for this policy
- Any signed driver-exclusion endorsement (if Root contends one exists)
- Factual findings reconciling confirmed permission with the denial
- The declarations page for policy Q24PBM in effect on the date of loss
- The name and contact of the author of the written determination
What this site asks for
The claimant is not seeking a windfall. The request is to be restored to the position occupied before the collision:
- The policy Q24PBM definition of “insured,†omnibus/permissive-use language, and any driver-exclusion endorsement—quoted, not merely alluded to.
- Clarification whether the at-fault driver was expressly excluded by signed endorsement, or how confirmed permission is consistent with finding the driver is not an insured.
- Prompt acceptance and adjustment of the property-damage claim by the responsible carrier, including reasonable repair costs and documented loss-of-use where applicable.
- No overbroad release required before all property-damage components are identified and resolved.