It’s frustrating because you’d expect comprehensive coverage to actually be comprehensive.
Tell me about it. My insurer was quick to cover a cracked windshield but when my Bolt’s battery lost a chunk of capacity out of nowhere, it was “normal aging.” How is a $12k battery just a consumable? Makes zero sense.
Yeah, that “normal aging” excuse gets tossed around a lot. I get that batteries degrade, but losing a big chunk of range all at once isn’t just regular wear and tear. It’s wild to me that insurance will jump to replace a $300 window but not even touch a battery that costs as much as a used car. Makes you wonder what “comprehensive” is supposed to mean.
I’ve started reading the fine print way more carefully after hearing stories like this. Some policies have all sorts of carve-outs for EVs, especially around batteries. Honestly, it feels like they’re still catching up with the tech. I’d rather pay a bit more for extra warranty coverage than risk getting stuck with a massive bill on a road trip. Not worth the stress.
Makes you wonder what “comprehensive” is supposed to mean.
That’s the part that gets me too. I’ve seen folks get their fenders replaced after a parking lot scrape, but when it comes to something as crucial as the battery, suddenly it’s “wear and tear.” I get that batteries aren’t cheap, but the logic feels off. Has anyone actually tried to file a claim for a battery failure? Curious if any insurers have stepped up or if it’s always a dead end.
I get that batteries aren’t cheap, but the logic feels off.
That’s exactly what puzzles me. Comprehensive should mean just that—covering the big stuff, not just cosmetic fixes. I haven’t filed a claim myself, but it does seem strange that a battery, which is basically the car’s heart, gets written off as “wear and tear.” It almost feels like they’re cherry-picking what’s covered when it suits them. Not the most reassuring for those of us clocking serious miles on the road.
Honestly, it bugs me too. You’d think “comprehensive” would handle something as critical as the battery, but insurers love that “wear and tear” loophole. Reminds me of the time a client tried to claim for a timing belt and got the same runaround—apparently, anything that actually fails from use is magically excluded. I get why they do it, but it does feel a bit like they’re picking and choosing. The wording in these policies is slippery... always read the fine print, right?
