Impacted at about 60kmph, I would imagine it has a lot to do with the angle of impact as well as weather conditions. wet equals greater chance of slashed tyres. My rims look perfect to the eye however diagnostics say something different. Suggest you have your rims checked properly.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Pothole Damage and Insurance
- Thread starter Se@n
- Start date
Impacted at about 60kmph, I would imagine it has a lot to do with the angle of impact as well as weather conditions. wet equals greater chance of slashed tyres. My rims look perfect to the eye however diagnostics say something different. Suggest you have your rims checked properly.
Definitely considering. I'll give my broker a shot at resolving or happily move on.
Atl this rate it's definitely worth it even if it cost slightly more. The chance of this happening to me again is greater than that of it not.
Thanks
I should do.
I hit a cable-dig pothole at 60km/h last year and no issues. The one in question now was about the size of a car tyre, just not as deep, and also at 60-80km/h.
Wish i was as fortunate as you.
Honestly whilst i probably could have taken more evasive action to avoid the pothole unfortunately it didnt pan out as such and the front right which took the bulk of the impact was slashed and the front left bubbled heavily on the sidewall. Could thankfully still drive very slowly to a repairer or i would have incurred towing costs as well. One advantage to runflats at least.
ChrisThomas
Senior Member
For the future, maybe look into a cover I have from a company called Regent, it is called paint tech. It cost me 5 and a half grand and it covers me for 6 years, it covers dents and scratches up to 15cm, windscreen damage, pothole/tyre damage and they will perform a free safety check and aircon sterilization once a year. All of this is excess free.
Hemi300c
Honorary Master
This is a run off period as Regent no longer do Personal Lines or Commercial Insurance only Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
Thanks for the heads up, will take a look and see what is available in line with this.
Whenever you buy a new car the dealership tries to flog you a whole bunch of added extras and little top cover policies, suppose i should listen harder next time.
dlk001
Executive Member
Even if you aren't noticing any suspension noises/issues, have BMW check your front control arm bushings just to be on the safe side.
ChrisThomas
Senior Member
When did that happen? I bought the car with that cover only 6 months ago? Oh well.
Hemi300c
Honorary Master
Nov last year Regent finalised their structure and streamlined their offering. If bought through a dealer and not on your personal policy they might continue with covers and ate contracted for 6 years anyhow.
Edit
Spoke to Regent.
Only new covers sold if connected to Heavy Commercial Vehicles/Transporters etc so no individual covers sold through dealers anymore.
Edit
Spoke to Regent.
Only new covers sold if connected to Heavy Commercial Vehicles/Transporters etc so no individual covers sold through dealers anymore.
Last edited:
Adenoid Hynkel
Executive Member
This. My tires were 9k. I paid 240 once off and that included nitrogen.
genetic
Honorary Master
Nitrogen is free. Some garages even stock it now.
the eskimo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 108
This is how I see it:
5.1.1 excludes damage to tyres ... except as a result of an accident which causes other damage
Hitting a pothole is an accident, therefore you should therefore be covered for your tyres as your rims/wheels and suspension were damaged as well.
The damage to your rims is not a concern of any of the exclusions, so you should be covered.
5.1.2 excludes damage to suspension caused by ... potholes
I haven't seen this exclusion in any other Motor Policy wording (and I work in the insurance industry). It is clear that your suspension damage is not covered under this exclusion, but you may wish your broker to argue that this exclusion defeats the purpose of insurance (to indemnify the insured for a fortuitous loss) and is not standard.
I wish you luck, and if you have no success with your insurer, get all your docs in order and claim from the municipality or department of public works. You'll need Pics of the pothole, Pics of the damage, three invoices, and possibly need to complete a claim form and a whole host of other documents.
The Short Term Insurance Ombud generally has sided with insurers where their policy wordings are clear and unambiguous, even if they are not the most fair, so I wouldn't advise this route.
Hollard probably has a "Pothole Extension" which they sell as an add on to their normal policy. They are also probably forcing you (rather than them as part of their subrogation rights) to claim from the municipality for admin sake.
Edit:
I spoke to a senior in our office, and he has said that 5.1.2 was probably to exclude gradual suspension damage over time as a result of continuous driving over uneven roads which may have potholes and they have just gradually changed it to apply to a single incident which should be covered. Not sure if this helps in any way.
5.1.1 excludes damage to tyres ... except as a result of an accident which causes other damage
Hitting a pothole is an accident, therefore you should therefore be covered for your tyres as your rims/wheels and suspension were damaged as well.
The damage to your rims is not a concern of any of the exclusions, so you should be covered.
5.1.2 excludes damage to suspension caused by ... potholes
I haven't seen this exclusion in any other Motor Policy wording (and I work in the insurance industry). It is clear that your suspension damage is not covered under this exclusion, but you may wish your broker to argue that this exclusion defeats the purpose of insurance (to indemnify the insured for a fortuitous loss) and is not standard.
I wish you luck, and if you have no success with your insurer, get all your docs in order and claim from the municipality or department of public works. You'll need Pics of the pothole, Pics of the damage, three invoices, and possibly need to complete a claim form and a whole host of other documents.
The Short Term Insurance Ombud generally has sided with insurers where their policy wordings are clear and unambiguous, even if they are not the most fair, so I wouldn't advise this route.
Hollard probably has a "Pothole Extension" which they sell as an add on to their normal policy. They are also probably forcing you (rather than them as part of their subrogation rights) to claim from the municipality for admin sake.
Edit:
I spoke to a senior in our office, and he has said that 5.1.2 was probably to exclude gradual suspension damage over time as a result of continuous driving over uneven roads which may have potholes and they have just gradually changed it to apply to a single incident which should be covered. Not sure if this helps in any way.
Last edited:
Hi.
Thanks very much for taking the time to chime in with a professional opinion. Will discuss these point with my broker in the morning and see if i can get them to relook the situation. I think theyre a good start at finding ways around this.
Ill post the outcome later in the week.
DominionZA
Executive Member
I must add that when I claimed, I put my pothole damage in as an accident claim. And to me - it IS. You hit ANYTHING with your cab, it is an accident. No-one intentionally targets potholes (or do they?)
I must add that when I claimed, I put my pothole damage in as an accident claim. And to me - it IS. You hit ANYTHING with your cab, it is an accident. No-one intentionally targets potholes (or do they?)
Have also put my claim through as an accident claim and also reported it to the police as such. Wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who do strange things for a certain outcome but I love my car and hate any kind of damage so I don't think I'm one of them people.
Insurance are now sending out an assessor, should i view this as slightly positive or is it merely a formality? An assessor wont be able to ascertain whether the rims are buckled or not by simply looking at the car as BMW had to take them off and test each individually.
DominionZA
Executive Member
Standard practice. They did it with me too.