Wear and tear

<p>My family like many other families had damage to their homes from the recent heavy rains in KZN. With the heavy rains, water began seeping into our house through the back wall. We do have insurance for times like this. However, this has not been the first time the water has come in. The first time we had claimed, the insurance company has told us that it is "wear and tear" and we accepted this. After the last heavy rains we called an architect to advise on this "wear and tear" and provide a way forward. To our surprise (because your insurance company should be looking after their clients best interests since we are paying customers), the evaluation given by the insurance is incorrect. The water coming into our home is not wear and tear as the waterproofing was done correctly. After speaking to Eunice from the queries department who explained that the insurance company would not cover our claim because we had painted the wall in the room (years ago) where the water had come in. Apparently if you paint your walls that is your attempt at fixing a problem - since when has paint been a solid way of fixing anything? When questioned if she paints her home and yes "clients are supposed to maintain their home by painting". Unsatisfied, we contacted senior management (as stated on the letter) who stated the damage to the wall and cupboard is wear and tear and the paint is an attempt to fix the problem. Now I am asked to forward a letter to the complaints department. In the meantime, the water logged cupboards have are a growing a fungus making everyone sick at home, the room cannot be used and we fear the rains. Should I wait for our entire building to be washed away in order for the insurance company to react? And then to be told "its wear and tear". How does insurance help in this case? Why are we insured?</p>