TL;DR: Hypothetically, could I get an AppleCare+ replacement for cosmetic damage on par with that in the photo below, despite the T&Cs saying otherwise? What the hell is "accidental damage" if it excludes cosmetic damage? I've never bothered with AppleCare+, however with the rising cost of out-of-warranty replacements (now £325 for a 7 Plus!) I thought it was time to join the club. My understanding was if I had AppleCare+, and I dropped my iPhone, and it caused a crack to the screen and some ugly damage to the shell (to the sort of standard in the photo below), that I could pay the excess fee and get a new phone. (Note this is not my photo, it's just an example I found online to illustrate my point.) But the terms and conditions specifically exclude cosmetic damage that does not affect the functioning of the device. That would imply the iPhone in the picture above, for instance, might be eligible for a screen replacement but certainly nothing else. So, what is the point in AppleCare+? Because I cannot envision a probable scenario where I could accidentally damage an iPhone to the point that it doesn't function (except screen damage) - especially now it's water resistant. Accidentally running your iPhone over with a car is basically the only accident that could stop it functioning. If cosmetic damage is excluded, what an earth is included? I would wager that the vast majority of incidents of damage to iPhones are caused by drops and falls, but a drop or fall would almost never stop an iPhone from functioning. It would just create cosmetic damage and perhaps break the screen. So are the T&Cs overzealous, and in reality people get AppleCare+ replacements for cosmetic damage all the time? Or, alternatively, is AppleCare+ enforced as per the T&Cs, thus making it largely pointless from an accidental damage perspective?