Dispute Over Engine Cover Interpretation – Claim 17 Feb 2026

I am extremely disappointed with the handling of my claim (17 February 2026) for my 2010 Volvo XC60, which has a full-service history and had its cambelt replaced last year November.

The alternator clutch pulley seized, causing the auxi****y belt to snap and become entangled in the cambelt, which then snapped and caused significant engine damage (hydraulic lifters, rocker arms, intake and exhaust valves).

Motorite has declined to apply the Engine benefit (R20,000 cover), stating that because the cambelt broke, the damage must fall under the Cambelt Failure provision instead of the Engine category.

However, the alternator clutch pulley is not listed as a covered Electrical Component, yet it is being used as the originating cause to limit the claim. This appears inconsistent.

The engine components damaged are internally lubricated engine parts that would normally fall under Engine cover. The cambelt was replaced in 2025 and the vehicle has been properly maintained.

I have formally disputed the interpretation and requested reassessment. I am simply seeking fair and consistent application of the policy wording.

I hope Motorite will review this matter objectively and resolve it without further escalation.