The supposed AppleCare+ was denied after the MacBook Pro was destroyed in a car accident.

According to revealed sources, Apple has refused an AppleCare+ request for accidental damage following the destruction of a MacBook Pro in a car accident.

A moderator of the subreddit shared the story of his severely damaged MacBook Pro and Apple's refusal to replace it...

The owner's account (reported by Macworld) is oddly formulated. It states that Apple refused its claim due to the machine being too badly deteriorated, which would not be a legitimate basis for exclusion.

Tragic story: my beloved MacBook Pro was involved in a car accident. I have AppleCare+ coverage for damages caused by accidents. They won't replace the iMac because it's "too damaged". money lost...

The Apple policy document indicates that it covers claims related to accidental damage.

If during the Coverage Period, you submit a valid claim notifying Apple that the Covered Product has failed due to an accident causing damage resulting from imprudence and not intentional at the time of an unforeseen external event (for example, falls and liquid damage during charging) ('ADH'), Apple, in its discretion and according to the service fee described below, shall either (i) repair the defect using genuine new or used Apple parts that have been tested and meet Apple's functional requirements, or (ii) exchange the Covered Product for a replacement product that is new or composed of new and/or genuine used Apple parts, and which has been tested and approved by Apple's functional requirements.

It then lists numerous exclusions, most of which would not be relevant in this case. There are two items that could apply. First, an exclusion for certain events:

To repair damage caused by fire, volcanic eruption, flood or other similar external causes

The purpose here is clear - exclude natural disasters - but the part "similar external causes" is very vague and could potentially allow Apple to argue that a car crash qualifies.

Secondly, it refers to damage caused by 'inconsiderate' behavior:

To repair damages, including excessive physical damage (for example, products that have been crushed, bent or submerged in liquid), caused by imprudent, abusive, voluntary or intentional behavior

Given that the owner admits to being reckless, Apple might be able to argue that he drives carelessly and exclude him based on this.

Unless there is something we are not aware of, which is always possible in these cases, the refusal of coverage seems surprising. Coverage for damages caused by incidents is precisely taken to cover damages resulting from accidents.

The 'reckless driving' exclusion in insurance contracts generally means doing something really stupid and with an obvious risk of damage, like throwing something at someone and they fail to catch it.

We have contacted Apple for a comment and will update this information with any response received.

Photo : Reddit user frk1974