An insured runs over a nail and has to replace the tire.
My interpretation, a collision claim. There is an exclusion under this Travelers NH policy for road damages to tires. Again, my interpretation is that exclusion would apply to damage to a tire caused by a pothole, etc.
Of course, if a collision occurred as a result of the tire damage I believe the damage to the tire WOULD be covered as part of the collision claim.
Your thoughts?
New Hampshire Subscriber
While technically a nail can be seen as an object, it's a stretch to put nail damage to a tire as collision. The exclusion is specific to road damage to tires – tires are in contact with the road constantly, and sustain a fair bit of wear because of it. There are random things in the road that you run over regularly – paper bags, various types of debris, nails, etc. It's just part of driving over the road. Nail damage to tires happens often enough that it would make sense to exclude it – note that the exclusion appears in the list of wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure. Therefore we see a nail as road damage, and excluded.
Aside from that, while tires are expensive, most people have at least a $500 deductible – my car has low profile tires which are expensive but I can get them for $200 a tire. Not only that, if you file a claim and have a really low deductible so that you get some money from the claim, it's going to count as a claim against your history, which means your premium will go up. It would be a really bad idea to file that claim.