1 reviews | Active since Apr 2021
Disc Insure are BULLIES and Don't care about their clients
laim *** I had an incident where I was visiting someone, I was hit by the gate as I was driving in, what they said that the gate motor failed and this place is in a slope, what happened is that the gate I opened fully and as I was driving it started closing so I had to speed forward to avoid being hit by the gate and unfortunately, there was a massive speed hump in front of the gate, so I hit it hard and the gate still hit my car on the R rear wheel and door, the car had a puncture, bent rim, scratched door and it started to drive wobbly especially on the front side where the impact of the speed bump was.
Claim Process I accessed the damaged and had the tyre re inflated, and then I called Discovery for the claim process, Shannon answered and arranged for me to bring the car in for Net assess, which I did and the claim was approved and they even arranged they own service provider to carry out the repairs, Proline Autobody Wynberg, that's where everything went south.
Repair firstly they didn't bother assess the car themselves, they just poorly fixed the visibly damage and called me after 3 days to say the car was ready for collection, when I got the car the car wasn't ready it was missing a side skit, they said I can bring it back after 4 days the missing part will be ready. So I took it and drove it for less than 500m to park it off and I brought it back after 4 days, another 500m drive, they fitted the missing piece. After that, I took the car for a serious test drive, it was driving horrible, jerky and wobbly on speeds around 100km/h, it was just unsafe to drive.
Relook After that I complained to the insurance that, I’m not happy with the repair work, they said I must take the car back to Proline, which I did and they just said it’s “Wear and Tear” damage, which goes against what they said earlier about the suspension being fine.
Second Opinion I took the car to a different workshop that is not affiliated with Discovery and they picked the poor work that Proline did, after informing Discovery, they sent another Net assess agent after 2 months, after he assessed the car, he ordered for a mechanical expert to come and assess, and he came after some time, he did his assessment. The mechanical expert concluded that the car had another incident that was not reported because the car had driven some kilometers from November, that is where he based his conclusion.
The whole thing was ridiculous, the incident happened in the very beginning of November, Discovery took me around the corners for 4 months, they did not offer me a loan car while they were investigating, I had to somehow get to work, so I used the car because I had no other option, Discovery knew about my complains within 3 days of car collection but they are saying their reason for not paying is because the car had another incident because it has driven more kilometers since the incident, it’s mind baffling, the last communication with them was that if I’m not happy I have 6 months to take them to court, what is that, if not bullying?
Thank you for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to share your concerns with us.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Thank you for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to share your concerns with us.
Regards
Discovery Insure
These are the arguments he made
1. The damage to the suspension, undercarriage and tyre could not have resulted from the gate incident or Proline work
Actual Fact: when you drive over some something like I did, at that speed I did and under conditions I was in, where the aftermath clearly affected how the car drove. it would be logical to think that the damage is a result of that otherwise, what else could have caused it? the second point, the complaint was not that Proline caused damage, it was that they did not FIX the damage. and finally, He never went to the accident scene, How can he be so sure that the incident did not cause the damage??
2. He said the car sustained further damage after repairs were done
Actual fact: I complained 3 days after collecting the car from Proline Autobody and it was reassessed within a week by Proline, and they said it was "Wear and Tear" . Now answer me, In this Time frame, is it this possible to crash a car, have it fixed in such a way that the workshop that worked on a car won't notice it but a guy that comes 4 months after would notice it? does this make sense? and if I could fix it myself, why would I bother involving you guys? even Net assess knew that it was the original damage.
3. He mentions that there is a mileage discrepancy, from the 1st net assess(1st week of November 2024) to his assessment date(Late March 2025)
Like, he knew that the car was drivable, I reported that when registering the claim, I was not offered a courtesy vehicle while you guys dragged your feet with the investigations, so what was I supposed to do, stop working?
4. He also mentions that the Turbo inlets were loose, which is irrelevant to the case, how ever it was in his conclusion as some corroboration fact. he was clearly reaching.
In Conclusion, it is clear that the outcome of my claim was preconceived, because the mechanical expert findings were inconclusive thus insufficient to deny a claim, He basically made it up that the car was in another incident, and tried but failed to justify it with incompatible "evidence"
These are the arguments he made
1. The damage to the suspension, undercarriage and tyre could not have resulted from the gate incident or Proline work
Actual Fact: when you drive over some something like I did, at that speed I did and under conditions I was in, where the aftermath clearly affected how the car drove. it would be logical to think that the damage is a result of that otherwise, what else could have caused it? the second point, the complaint was not that Proline caused damage, it was that they did not FIX the damage. and finally, He never went to the accident scene, How can he be so sure that the incident did not cause the damage??
2. He said the car sustained further damage after repairs were done
Actual fact: I complained 3 days after collecting the car from Proline Autobody and it was reassessed within a week by Proline, and they said it was "Wear and Tear" . Now answer me, In this Time frame, is it this possible to crash a car, have it fixed in such a way that the workshop that worked on a car won't notice it but a guy that comes 4 months after would notice it? does this make sense? and if I could fix it myself, why would I bother involving you guys? even Net assess knew that it was the original damage.
3. He mentions that there is a mileage discrepancy, from the 1st net assess(1st week of November 2024) to his assessment date(Late March 2025)
Like, he knew that the car was drivable, I reported that when registering the claim, I was not offered a courtesy vehicle while you guys dragged your feet with the investigations, so what was I supposed to do, stop working?
4. He also mentions that the Turbo inlets were loose, which is irrelevant to the case, how ever it was in his conclusion as some corroboration fact. he was clearly reaching.
In Conclusion, it is clear that the outcome of my claim was preconceived, because the mechanical expert findings were inconclusive thus insufficient to deny a claim, He basically made it up that the car was in another incident, and tried but failed to justify it with incompatible "evidence"
Not well at all, I'm going to keep replying in Public to ensure that the prospective and current clients are aware of what happens when one your guys recommended repairers do a horrible job.
This does not need to go to the NFO, It is very simple, I don't care much about the rejection, it's all about the due process as per The Short Term Insurance Act 1998(Act no.58 of 1998)
The act says in short, Insurers can only decline claims based on the terms and conditions set out in the contract of insurance, You guys have failed to clearly stipulate on where did I breach the policy, as the act emphasizes that any rejection of claim must be clearly justified in terms of policy wording and not be unfair, which is the case here.
Secondly, in your report you accused me of misrepresenting of facts, which constitutes ***** and the Act stipulates that in such cases, the burden lies with the insurer to prove or demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that ***** did take place, not blind speculation as per my case.
And lastly, given the trend that is noticeable, where if the clients are not happy with the workmanship of one of your recommended/ approved/mandatory -ish service providers the burden tends to thrown to the client instead of the holding the service provider accountable, just like in my case. This is clearly in contravention of the Competition Act, No 89 of 1998, which is very much against restrictive practices, as per Section 4 of the act, on Horizontal practices. I am basing this on the trend as aforementioned, it appears to be a horizontal practice because it seems like the modus operandi is that, these service providers are in a position where they are semi guaranteed clients irrespective of the level of the workmanship or the quality of work they do, this leads to clients like me, to be subjected into substandard work or services and when we complain we get thrown to the dogs, because they are protected it seems. This is clearly unfair and it contravenes the National Consumers Act No. 68 of 2008, which clearly states, on section 54, consumers have a right to quality service, which further stipulates that, Services must be performed Timely, in a Manner and quality that shows skill, care and diligence and that goods resulting from a service must be free of defects and fit for the intended purpose, In which in my case these were not met and it appears that as a result of unfair horizontal practices, I will not be able to ever get the service I need.
In conclusion, I hope this can a valuable lesson to someone so that they know what may befall them, I feel very sorry for new car owners or people who are not fami**** with cars or mechanical work, because you if you ever claim, you will be in a position where you will have no choice but to accept the service provider they are recommending, and if you are not happy with their work, which is very likely, you will be on your own.
Not well at all, I'm going to keep replying in Public to ensure that the prospective and current clients are aware of what happens when one your guys recommended repairers do a horrible job.
This does not need to go to the NFO, It is very simple, I don't care much about the rejection, it's all about the due process as per The Short Term Insurance Act 1998(Act no.58 of 1998)
The act says in short, Insurers can only decline claims based on the terms and conditions set out in the contract of insurance, You guys have failed to clearly stipulate on where did I breach the policy, as the act emphasizes that any rejection of claim must be clearly justified in terms of policy wording and not be unfair, which is the case here.
Secondly, in your report you accused me of misrepresenting of facts, which constitutes ***** and the Act stipulates that in such cases, the burden lies with the insurer to prove or demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that ***** did take place, not blind speculation as per my case.
And lastly, given the trend that is noticeable, where if the clients are not happy with the workmanship of one of your recommended/ approved/mandatory -ish service providers the burden tends to thrown to the client instead of the holding the service provider accountable, just like in my case. This is clearly in contravention of the Competition Act, No 89 of 1998, which is very much against restrictive practices, as per Section 4 of the act, on Horizontal practices. I am basing this on the trend as aforementioned, it appears to be a horizontal practice because it seems like the modus operandi is that, these service providers are in a position where they are semi guaranteed clients irrespective of the level of the workmanship or the quality of work they do, this leads to clients like me, to be subjected into substandard work or services and when we complain we get thrown to the dogs, because they are protected it seems. This is clearly unfair and it contravenes the National Consumers Act No. 68 of 2008, which clearly states, on section 54, consumers have a right to quality service, which further stipulates that, Services must be performed Timely, in a Manner and quality that shows skill, care and diligence and that goods resulting from a service must be free of defects and fit for the intended purpose, In which in my case these were not met and it appears that as a result of unfair horizontal practices, I will not be able to ever get the service I need.
In conclusion, I hope this can a valuable lesson to someone so that they know what may befall them, I feel very sorry for new car owners or people who are not fami**** with cars or mechanical work, because you if you ever claim, you will be in a position where you will have no choice but to accept the service provider they are recommending, and if you are not happy with their work, which is very likely, you will be on your own.