Component not covered.

Rejected Motor Warranty Claim on Safety-Critical Electrical Component – Volkswagen T-Cross

I am raising a formal complaint regarding a motor warranty claim that has recently been rejected by OUTsurance.

The claim relates to the front headlamp unit on my 2021 Volkswagen T-Cross. The reason given for the rejection was that the specific component is “not covered” under the warranty. However, this position creates a contradiction within the policy and the safe operation of the insured vehicle.

On the Volkswagen T-Cross, the Daytime Running Light (DRL) is integrated into the headlamp assembly and also functions as the vehicle’s indicator. This is not a replaceable globe or simple component that can be changed independently. The indicator is embedded within the headlamp unit and forms part of the vehicle’s electrical system and safety design.

On Thursday, 12 March, this unit stopped working without any warning from the vehicle’s system. I only became aware of the failure when another road user shouted at me while I was dropping my children at school, informing me that my indicator was not working.

This is not simply a cosmetic or convenience issue. The indicator is a legally required safety feature for all road users. With this component not functioning, the vehicle can effectively be considered not roadworthy.

Replacing the part with an inferior or generic component is not a viable option, as this could compromise the vehicle’s electrical system and potentially invalidate future claims. The only correct repair is replacement of the original headlamp unit supp**** by Volkswagen, which has been quoted at R20,490.00.

The vehicle:

Is a 2021 Volkswagen T-Cross

Was purchased 8 months ago

Has less than 85,000 km

Is covered by an OUTsurance Motor Warranty

OUTsurance is also the main insurer on both of my vehicles

The dealership where the vehicle was purchased recommended the OUTsurance Motor Warranty, and based on that recommendation I trusted that essential mechanical and electrical components would be covered.

This is clearly an electrical component that forms part of a critical safety system. Rejecting the claim on the basis that the component itself is “not covered” effectively leaves the insured vehicle in a non-roadworthy condition while the policyholder continues paying for cover.

It also creates an unreasonable situation where future claims could potentially be rejected because of a fault that has already been reported but refused under the warranty.

I therefore believe this claim should be reconsidered under the electrical component coverage of the motor warranty, especially given the safety implications for both myself and other road users.

I am requesting that OUTsurance review this decision urgently and provide a fair resolution.