Insurance Journal Forums

My rims were stolen 2 days ago, and my claim for the rims were rejected.

The wording under my policy as followed:

Chapter One: The Company Obligations
The company hereby shall be obliged to indemnify the Insured against the damage to the Motor Vehicle which may arise out of the following:
..
3) Theft, including attempted theft or burglary
..

Exceptions to chapter one:
..
5. Loss theft or damage to the vehicle tyres, spare parts, wheel covers and antenna, unless such damage has arisen out of other indemnifiable damage
..

My question is,
1. Does the wording above explicitly or implicitly imply that rims or wheels is not covered in the policy?

2. If it doesn't, what is the best next step to pursue for me to be able to claim for the rims?

Appreciate any advise

I'm assuming these are custom rims. If so, there may be a limitation or exclusion unless the policy is specifically endorsed to cover custom rims (or custom anything else).

The same holds true for any other sort of customization. Carriers need to know about this to specifically endorse the policy (and charge the appropriate premium).

You need to ask your insurance company for a clearer explanation - requestiong to be shown where the exclusion is for any customization. BTW, which carrier?

It comes with all suzuki swift car out of showroom.

I'm actually posting from the Middle East, Qatar to be specific. My carrier is QIC (Qatar Insurance Company).

I need expert opinion to either substantiate my claim or verify that the definition of "tire" and "wheel" or "wheelcaps" are the same in the industry, thus i should not proceed with the claim.

And also, my policy is a full coverage policy.

Thanks for the reply

Given that you and your carrier are in the Middle East, policy language and standards are totally different from US based insurers.

Best recommendation is to contact your insurance company and request clarification as the policy language appears to be questionable. Next step would be to talk to a local legal aid agency.

I will bring the matter up to the relevant authorities.

Thanks

were you under your deductible?

As the insurance policy wording was actually derived from the law itself which is

Resolution of the Minister of Interior No. 4/1992

...

According to the standard conditions, the insurer is not bound to compensate the insured for the consequential loss following the accident; the loss resulting from deprivation from use of the vehicle and depreciation in its value; the loss from consumption of the vehicle; the loss from any breakdown, breaking or any mechanical or electrical defect resulting from use of the vehicle; the loss stealing of or damage to the tires and reserve implements, hubcaps, pneumatics of the vehicle unless the damage is due to a collision, overturning or fire;

..

I don't think it's challengeable..