Will Comprehensive cover this?

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 03:08 am Post Subject:

Why did you loose the tire? If the tire came off and caused that damage it would be collision. Tire/wheel is probably not covered.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:17 am Post Subject: Tire came apart

Rubber came off the middle of front tire and as tire spun beat and tore everything up. The tread part came off the tire 1 inch thick and 10 inches across like a hammer as it rotated did damage, the radial core was still intact and full of air. Is this under collision

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:04 pm Post Subject:

Probably constitutes "other than collision" (aka: comprehensive), like running into a deer. If you have both collision and comprehensive coverage, file the claim and let the insurance company determine which coverage they want to cover the claim under. It should be paid, one way or another.

If you could prove a "manufacturing defect" then you might have a claim against the tire manufacturer for any amount not covered by your personal auto policy.

In stating all of this, I am assuming this happened on a highway and not "offroad". Your descriptive terms sound like we're discussing a vehicle capable of being operated "offroad". If that's where this damage occurred, your personal auto policy coverage might not apply -- either collision or comprehensive.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 02:27 pm Post Subject:

I just repaired a vehicle in which the tire blew out and shredded. It damaged the rear bumper and inner splash shield. All were replaced and was covered under comprehensive since there was no collision or impact involved.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 05:00 pm Post Subject:

If the tire did not separate from the wheel, then most companies will pay this under comprehensive coverage.

I'll ask any of the posters here... why? Look at the named perils listed under comprehensive and point out the one that applies;

fire, falling objects, missiles, explosions, earthquakes, windstorms, hail, floods, vandalism, a riot or contact with animals

If the tire flaps around and damages the fender/bumper area then it's still attached and not a "falling object".

Collision is a collision or upset of the vehicle. The vehicle's tire colliding with the fender or bumper of the vehicle.

Most adjusters will consider it under comprehensive as they have been told, "a vehicle cannot collide with itself". Odd thought... if my bumper falls off and I run over it the next day in the road, that's comprehensive? No.... so I guess a vehicle _can_ collide with itself.

I've had supervisors who have asked me if the tire separated from the vehicle and cause the damage when flying off or did the tire flap around and cause the damage. This would be the correct way of looking at this type of loss. It considers exactly what the difference is between comprehensive and collision coverage is in this case... a collision or damage from a flying object.

But the issue almost always comes down to... how can anyone know if the tire was connected or not when it caused the damage? How can know if some pieced flew off and caused some damage and/or if the flapping tire also caused some damage? That is, what if it's both? This is why it's almost always considered under comprehensive coverage... because there is no good way to know if it was one and not the other or both. To consider it under comprehensive is better for the insured and it does not make much of a difference to the insurance company (i.e. it probably should not be chargeable against the insured like a collision claim would be).

Note: I don't think it was this type of claim but I did hear of an agent pointing out that comprehensive perils were not all inclusive. That is, we looked at anything that was not caused by a named peril under comprehensive as being a collision. What if something was not a collision? Was it automatically one of the named perils under comprehensive? Not everything falls into a nice neat definition.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 05:57 pm Post Subject:

Would the faulty tire also be covered or just the damage it caused?

FK

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 06:01 pm Post Subject:

Tire. no. It either failed because of wear and tear or defect.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:24 pm Post Subject:

The tire might be covered under a road hazard coverage where you purchased the tire.

Not related perhaps but only curious,,,,,
Did any insurers (circa 1980) go after firestone when their 500 series tires separated and caused untold accidents and problems? Would this be any different than some of the current insurers taking Toyota to task for not recalling defective (known) accelerator issues? If a tire was known later to be a defective tire and later recalled, could the insurer subrogate against the manufacturer or distributor of the tire for damages they paid to a policy holder where the tire caused body damages?

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:30 pm Post Subject:

Did any insurers (circa 1980) go after firestone when their 500 series tires separated and caused untold accidents and problems?

If a tire was known later to be a defective tire and later recalled, could the insurer subrogate against the manufacturer or distributor of the tire for damages they paid to a policy holder where the tire caused body damages?