Discovery prejudicing clients hiding under Corona pandemic

My car was ****** under custody of a service provider around March. Discovery initiated the car hunt process and a few days later advised me to deregister my car since chances of recovery were close to non. Later, Discovery started what looked like a fault-finding process at me, their client, of which I was clearly responding to answer all concerns that they raised. I gave all my responses during this pandemic period; whereby I had to send documents and all kind of information they asked for, before they would bring new faults, which I also clearly responded to and clarified.

Later, without any clear reasons, they rejected my claim asserting the car was with the service provider in whose hands the car was alleged to have been ******. On hearing the car had been found, I asked for the car to be handed to save my time (and Discovery’s time as well), and Discovery remained silent for close to a month until mid-to-end of May where Discovery put some new grounds to deny yet again the claim, but this time not stating the car was found as previously stated. The new basis for not approving was stated as non-conformance to disclosure requirements during tenure of cover; which I know is unfounded since I know all the times I communicated with Discovery, including what I was disclosing at every stage.

Hence, the evidence needed to show compliance is readily available within the same roofs of Discovery. I then asked for Discovery to send me past recordings of my communications with them over specific time periods in which I had communicated the very same concerns they were raising as basis for non-approval. Surprisingly, Discovery first allowed me to come through and access the recordings; then they said they would burn the recordings on discs and send to me; then later said it was impossible to courier the disks. Reasons for all the three different and changing responses was cited was the easy-to-say ‘Corona virus pandemic.’ I even suggested they could put the information on a cloud system in which I could access remotely and they said it is impossible. Really? But same Discovery was asking me for information during the Corona pandemic and I was responding. Besides, even under difficult times like this, I am still paying monthly premiums now, and not later after the pandemic.

How can a company having the data that they require from me to approve my claim, deny me access from themselves to retrieve and prove compliance of same to them? Moreover, how can they insist that I have not comp**** if they don’t want me to give me access which demonstrate or show them how I comp****. The information is with them! It’s pure conflict of interest. Discovery is prejudicing its clients hiding under the easy-to-say Corona pandemic. The client should respond now, but Discovery should respond after the pandemic. The client should take an apple from Discovery’s left hand, and put it in Discovery’s right hand, but without being allowed access to either hands. It is pure conflict of interest. What is Discovery trying to tell its clients and future potential clients. Justice delayed is justice denied. Discovery is using an unfounded basis to buy time and delay approval of claims of its innocent clients. Is this the Discovery that boasts as an insurance of choice for drivers? I need an answer.