LOL @ the "Big Dong" comment - just count yourself lucky the BoB wasn't 'in use' when the batteries were leaking!!!

In addition to the comments here, notably by Fil M23, I think you have missed the point here. As CK has advised, you would need some form of mechanical warranty cover. Otherwise you don't stand a chance. When Fil M23 speaks about the cause that led him to the claim, he is forgetting about the technical and legal aspects of insurance.

It's far too complex and detailed for a forum, but it does relate to the Insured perils, excepted or excluded perils, uninsured or unnamed perils; leading from the proximate cause/Causation (legal def.)

To summarise: take it from me, you don't have a chance with the claim!

You have my sympathies, My Big Dong was destroyed by the batteries leaking inside it, i claimed that without that, it would still be in good nick, but they wanted nothing of it.

if the damage was caused as a result of wear and tear it is not a seperate accident and as it was caused by the wear and tear, ERS will not cover it.

Sorry I am not more positive

sorry CK my bad, of course most insurers tend to exclude tyre damage these days caused by braking. cuts punctures etc, but others only exclude it by saying "tyres not covered unless damage is caused by an accident to your vehicle".

All i'm trying to find out is how far you can stretch wording -

actually CK, yeah, if u run over a nail and puncture your tyre it would be AD and therefore claimable under your insurance.

people obviosuly dont claim for it tho, cos of the minimal cost involved compared to your excess and premium

Well what about your tyres then, running over a nail could be classed as an accident. Would you expect those to be covered as well ?

Unless you had specific insurance for the peril, then I think your on a "hiding to nowhere" !

This is my opinion, I hope others give their views.

I appreciate that that is the common held belief, but my feeling is that it can be argued that whilst the bottom end of the engine that is damaged is due to breakdown/wear and tear/failure etc, the rest of the engine was damaged by oil going thru it.

i.e the rest of the engine was not damaged by its own failure, but by an accident happening to it.

I know this sounds like loophole search (which it is - new engine is gonna cost me about £2.5k 2nd hand or £5k new, which obviously i don't wanna be paying for :-) ) but i think that if the engine had caught on fire (which lets face it would have been the result of its own failure) then insurers would have no qualms in dealing with it as Fire damage, so I don't see why the same principle can't be applied to an incident like this.

if cause X hadn't happened, then Y wouldn't have occured. So like i said originally, whilst the part that broke down shouldn't be insured, the resultant accidental damage could/should be.

Just trying to see if anyone here is on the same wavelength or can definitely say no cos of xyz

cheers 

Hi --- That being the case then, NO you don't have a valid claim for mechanical failure caused by accidental failure, or anything related to it.

I thought you were talking about some form of mechanical warranty cover, which you would need to have before any chance of a valid claim, in the above circumstances.

It does not surprise me, that the claims handler or supervisor, couldn't understand the point you were making !

Sorry - ERS is Equity Red Star (motor insurers) - just run of the mill motor insurers - comp cover etc

I have had an incident with my car engine the other day where the "bottom end" failed/brokedown/wore out, whatever you want to call it, and as a result it sent oil shooting through the rest of the engine and the turbo, and basically resulted in my entire engine being destroyed and requiring replacing.

I rang my insurers (ERS) to register a claim and ask them to arrange an inspection as the vehicle is at my local garage who have confirmed that the entire engine needs replacing. However they have advised that the insurance will not consider the claim as it is wear and tear. 

I explained to them that whilst I appreciate that the part that broke/failed etc wouldn't be covered, I felt that the rest of the engine that was damaged by the oil being shot through it, should be covered as it is resultant accidental damage.

Unfortunately, the claims person and their supervisor both felt that this would be wear and tear and they couldn't seem to see the point i was making.

My policy covers me for accidental damage, altho it excludes (as you'd suspect) wear and tear , failures, breakdowns, or breakages of mechanical, electrical, electronic or computer equipment. however, as I 've said i feel the rest of the engine that was damaged was accidental damage by the escaping oil, and not due to wear and tear or breakdown of that part of the engine and turbo.

Do you agree that I have a case? they have asked me to write into their underwriters with my views, but obvisouly in the meantime, this means they will not have the chance to inspect the vehicle and appreciate my point because i need my car and will be getting the engine replaced asap.