Subject and Verb

Jack,

The quick answer is 'yes'. But the sentence isn't written properly. Here is a version that more clearly states what I think is your intended meaning:

Or "both accidents were due to swerving or striking an animal"?

Pieanne,

I suspect that the point of the sentence is to explain what kind of accidenta are covered by 'collision insurance'. Striking an animal is going to cause damage to the vehicle, swerving to avoid the animal will not cause damage to the vehicle unless the swerving causes the car to hit or be hit by something else. If the car was not forced to swerve, a collision would not have oc

Hence "collision claims"... Thank you, Davkett!

Hello, Jack.

"due to swerving an animal or striking an animal" is also part of the subject. I agree the sentence needs imporving, but others have taken care of that already.

Miriam

1. Having an accident due to swerving an animal or striking an animal was both collision claims. I would say that the underlined part is the subject. gerund phrase formins as the subjet.

and the verb be "was" is the verb.

'Both' so late in the sentence seems a little odd to me:

1. Automobile accidents caused by swerving from an animal or (automobile accidents caused by) striking an animal are both 'collision' claims.

Here, 'automobile accidents' refers to the aggregate of such types of accident in each case, rather than two kinds of accident.

Maybe we should omit the 'both' altogether:

Or to return to the original:

1. Having an accident due to swerving away from or striking an animal is a 'collision claim'.

Though 'due to' looks a little suspect here.

MrP