King Price warranty claim declined!

I recently submitted a claim that involved multiple components, and according to the damage report, the issue could be linked to wear and tear over time. King Price has declined the claim on the basis that they do not cover “damage caused by parts that wear as part of their function, like diffs, the suspension, wheel bearings, CV joints, clutch, drive pulleys, brake pads, brake linings, tyres, etc.”

My argument is that the components requiring replacement are not consumable wear-and-tear parts (like brake pads, shocks, or tyres), but rather non-consumable mechanical components that can fail despite proper maintenance. The vehicle does have high mileage, but it has been maintained with a full-service history.

It seems unreasonable that King Price’s position is that major mechanical parts should never fail. Any car owner knows that, over time, even non-consumable components can and do break down, despite regular servicing. It feels like King Price is simply using “wear and tear” as a blanket excuse to avoid paying legitimate claims.

This leaves me questioning the value of paying monthly premiums if, when something significant happens, the insurer dismisses it under a vague “wear and tear” exclusion.