Our insured was driving his car down the highway when a tire on the car shredded. Parts of the tire broke the muffler system and dented the wheel well. The insurer wants to cover the damage under the collision coverage, but we feel that other than collision coverage is more proper.

The definition of “collision” that is on the auto policy is important in this instance. Assuming that the definition is “impact with another vehicle or object,” we believe that if the tire tread had completely separated from the rest of the tire and the wheel at the time it struck the muffler, collision is the proper coverage; that is, if the tire tread pieces had separated from the tire and wheel, then they were “another object” that collided with the insured's auto. If the pieces were still somehow connected to the auto at the time of the damage, then the pieces cannot be considered “another object” separate from the insured's auto. In such an instance, coverage would be under the other than collision part of the policy.

Could you provide additional explanation how the tire tread entirely separating from the vehicle makes the claim collision?

Kentucky Subscriber

The main thing about the shredded tire being a collision or other than collision loss is the phrase “impact with ANOTHER object”. If the tire is still connected to the wheel, and thus, the car, it cannot be ANOTHER object. If the tire is separated from the vehicle, it becomes another object.

Now, you make a good point about a flying tire being a missile; it certainly could be. So, it boils down to what is best for the insured. If the damage is caused by a cause of loss that could be seen as both a collision loss and an other than collision loss, the insured should get the benefit of the reasonable doubt and have the damage listed under the cause of loss that has the lower deductible.