I've heard lamer, but I'm at the stage where I don't get emotional about it anymore, I have it down to a fine art.
I'd have to read the final settlement agreement carefully but think I agreed not to name them. I could however tell you they are very well established and are world renowned for their involvement in shipping insurance.
I actually put it to them before I instructed lawyers that even if they could warp the wording of the policy to mean we were only covered for one 'weather front' and not the entire storm, I was only claiming for the front that originally damaged the equipment. We could establish exactly what time the damage occured because security reported the roof damage as it occurred and within a few minutes the entire building power went down because of the electrical fault. They just refused point blank to discuss the reasoning behind their decision.
I agree, at that stage in the game they hold all the cards and they are happy to refuse genuine claims probably as some kind of numbers game. I'm sure they're aware that statistically a certain number of these victims won't see the legal process through for any number of reasons so they basically try their luck. If this is the case then they're no better than the low-life policy holders who make fraudulent claims.
I'm not sure of the Rand value of your claim but if it's substantial enough I would get an independant report on the drive way and an independent legal opinion on the policy and the insurance companies liability. I would expect this to require a comitment of a couple of thousand Rands to figure out if you have a leg to stand on legally speaking. At that stage I'm sure if you read between the lines you would be able to decide if it's worth more time/money persuing the claim through the ombudsman or the courts.
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.