Earlier quoted context omitted.
My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out that it doesn’t unless it never actually touched the road. And either no one told him that it has to be a collision claim, or he just decided not to bother with a $700 collision claim after he got an independent estimate (and complain to the author that debris…
This is exactly it. The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record.
Pedantically[0], he doesn't want a $16,000 no-fault claim misclassified as at-fault on his record. See:
> > obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive
0: The record entry would be the same (eg "road debris, at-fault") either way.