Courts have generally interpreted the word “object” as a broad and all-inclusive term. Keep in mind courts sometimes take into consideration whether the driver had driven the road before and was familiar with road conditions. So whether the insured was familiar with the conditions of the particular road may come into play when determining whether the damage was accidental or unforeseen.

The phrase “collision with another object” as contained in an automobile insurance policy providing coverage for damages to the insured's vehicle caused by collision with another object has been found to be ambiguous when applied to a pothole in the roadway. For example, in Loftis v. Vesta Companies, 686 N.E.2d 383 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 1997), damage from traveling over a pothole was deemed to be collision damage by the court. In this case, the court said that the insured's version that this was collision with another object was a reasonable interpretation of the policy language. The court also said that the insurer's view that being jostled by running over a pothole was not a collision was also reasonable. Because both interpretations were reasonable, the policy language was held ambiguous and the insured got the benefit of the doubt.

Of course this type of loss might be covered by the deductible anyway.  But, based on the information you have provided, we believe the insured should receive the benefit of the doubt where there is any ambiguity. Thus, the damage to the tire from the pothole should be covered as collision.