Insurance companies are unlikely to pay for a car accident claim if the vehicle’s tyres were not adequately maintained.
This is according to King Price, which noted that South Africans are, on average, very bad at maintaining their car tyres.
It highlighted that tyre bursts are the single largest “vehicle factor” in crashes, accounting for 54% of vehicle crashes, according to the Road Traffic Management Corporation’s (RTMC’s) 2025 quarterly report.
In comparison, the second highest vehicle factor is faulty brakes, which feature in 22.5% of all crashes.
DEKRA Automotive pointed out that bald tyres (ones with no tread) or otherwise defective tyres will make your car instantly fail a roadworthy inspection.
“Most “tyre and insurance” myths fall apart the moment you read Regulation 212 of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA) and a couple of OSTI rulings,” said King Price.
“South Africa’s legal tread minimum is 1 mm, but Michelin’s safety threshold is 1.6 mm , and a tyre that contributes to a crash can void a comprehensive claim if the insurer can prove knowledge and causation.”
The NRTA outlines the provisions governing tyre use in South Africa, requiring that:
- The tread pattern must be visible and at least 1 mm deep across the full breadth and around the entire circumference of the tyre
- Steel or canvas cord must not be visible anywhere on the tyre
- The sidewall must be free of deep cuts, lumps, or bulges
This is important because all car insurance policies in South Africa contain a “general condition of the vehicle” or “roadworthiness” clause, which assumes that the motorist took reasonable steps to maintain their vehicle.
This means that, if the insurer can prove your tyres fail to meet the requirements in Regulation 212 and that this contributed to the accident, they can deny your claim.
Myths about tyres and car insurance
King Price warned that tyres are not a minor consumable, but are an integral part of the car. Because of this, motorists have to be aware of what insurers can and cannot do with regards to tyre-related claims.
It said a common myth was that insurers would still pay for claims involving worn tyres. While companies can’t reject these claims outright, the National Financial Ombud Scheme has set a clear precedent for these cases.
Insurers must be able to prove on a balance of probabilities that the motorist recklessly ignored their unroadworthy tyres and that this defect was material to the accident.
Getting hit by a car that ran a red light has nothing to do with the state of your tyres. On the other hand, losing control of the vehicle in the rain because of a lack of grip is a situation where the tyres were material to the crash.
King Price said that motorists should check the following to ensure their tyres are safe and won’t impact a claim:
- No visible cord, cuts, lumps, or bulges
- No tyres older than 10 years, including spares
- Rotated every 8,000, 10,000 km or at every service
- Pressure checked monthly, including the spare annually
- A SAPS case number within 24 hours of any malicious damage
- A current roadworthy if your insurer’s policy wording requires one
- All four tyres matched in size, load index, speed rating, and pattern
- Tread depth above 1mm across the full breadth and circumference, but ideally above 1.6mm
If your claim is rejected on tyre grounds, you should get the rejection in writing and ask the insurer to specify the policy clause they are relying on, and the evidence behind it.
You can then lodge a formal complaint with the insurer. This is required before you can proceed to the Ombud.
Give it up to six weeks. If the insurer has not resolved the dispute by then, you can escalate the matter by lodging with the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (OSTI).
“OSTI has consistently held that a roadworthiness repudiation requires the insurer to prove both knowledge by the insured and material causation between the defect and the loss. If the insurer’s evidence is weak on either point, the Ombud regularly recommends settlement,” said King Price.
“In OSTI’s most recent annual reporting period, about 16% of all complaints finalised resulted in additional benefit being paid to the consumer after intervention.[4] Free, low-risk, and worth it.”
Loading ...
