LI
Lance I
1 reviews | Active since Apr 2019
26 Jan 2022, 18:46
Unresolved third party claim
A client of Discovery knocked into me on the 15th December 2021. On the 10th of January 2022 I was told to take my car for an assessnent.
Last week i called them for feedback and I was told they recieved the assessment and will finalize everything this week, they'll get back to.
I decided to call the call centre at 16:30-16:35 26 January 2022 and the lady that helped me said that the client isn't liable for payment because the accident wasn't her fault as she was smashed and grabbed. I became irritated and asked how could it not have been their client's fault because I was standing in front of her at a red robot so it couldn't have been my fault. She argued with me because she (the call centre agent) imp**** that the accident is the person who broke into the ladies car's fault and therefore the matter must be escalated to the legal department. While we were talking she tried to talk over me and instead of trying to understand what i was saying and resolving the matter, she put the phone down without resolving anything.
Why did you send me for an assessment if i wasn't going to be assisted?
Its as if you are doing everything in your power not to pay clients, but you recieve their money onbtime every month.
Helpful (0)
Replies (1)0
Replies (1)LI
Lance I's updateReviewer Update
27 Jan 2022, 18:59One star is to much for a rating.
Your client knocked into me and this is how you respond to an innocent road user. You are unfair and borderline explointing this situation. You recieve millions per day and don't want to pay a few thousands.
This email is a joke sent by Gretchen Rubin: With regards to the aforementioned claim and the information at our disposal, we will not be entertaining your third party claim against our client. Our client whilst standing stationary at the robot experienced a smash and grab and a result of attempting to escape danger collided with your vehicle. We will not accept liability herein as our client was under attack and needed to escape danger.(My question: How could she, if she was right on top of me. If she was a distance, there would have been time to move away if there wasn't any traffic) . Below would be the case law pertaining to the mentioned incident Driver under attacka) In Msutu v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1991 (1) SA 583 (C) the driver of a vehicle was attacked by a group of people. Stones were thrown at his vehicle. In the process he ducked his head and drove on to escape. He collided with the plaintiff. The Court held that the doctrine of sudden emergency is applicable and held that the driver was not negligent.See also Mfihlo v Port Elizabeth Municipal Council 1976 (3) SA 183 (SE) b) In Samson v Winn 1977 (1) SA 761 (C) the defendant pressed the accelerator and not the brake when a man with a panga took a slash at him, hitting his vehicle and the defendant ducked forward and also swerved. As a result of the defendant’s action taken, he collided with the plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle. On 769 the Court held:“Samson had something less than 3 or 3,6 seconds in which to act. He instinctively ducked his head. He then carried out a left swing and then an over-correction towards the right, still while keeping his head down out of harm's way. The over-correction, I have no doubt, was also instinctive. We cannot, in my view, hold this man to have been negligent in all the circumstances of this case.” As this is a legal matter, should you dispute our decision on this claim, you have the prerogative to obtain the assistance of legal counsel to have the claim adjudicated in Court and for the Court to make a decision on the matter. Note that all our client’s rights remain reserved and should you pursue the matter in Court we will defend our client. Regards Gretchen Rubin
Listen this is all good and well but there is know information with regard to how much space those gentleman had to move out of the way. I'll assume they had enough space to move out of the way. The law also states that there must be a safe distance between two vehicles and there wasn't much if any between us. Besides that. It was peak time and the road was full of cars standing at a red robot so there wasn't any way for your client to get away whatsoever. She was blocked from the back, the front and the side and she didnt duck when knocking into me.
Common sense is also needed in this situation. Your clients pays insurance so that you can assist them in situations like this, but instead you try your best not to pay claims.
Your client was not even a metre away from me and why was her bag visible. Technically its her fault that her car was smashed and grabbed because her bag was visible. To be continued...
Your client knocked into me and this is how you respond to an innocent road user. You are unfair and borderline explointing this situation. You recieve millions per day and don't want to pay a few thousands.
This email is a joke sent by Gretchen Rubin: With regards to the aforementioned claim and the information at our disposal, we will not be entertaining your third party claim against our client. Our client whilst standing stationary at the robot experienced a smash and grab and a result of attempting to escape danger collided with your vehicle. We will not accept liability herein as our client was under attack and needed to escape danger.(My question: How could she, if she was right on top of me. If she was a distance, there would have been time to move away if there wasn't any traffic) . Below would be the case law pertaining to the mentioned incident Driver under attacka) In Msutu v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1991 (1) SA 583 (C) the driver of a vehicle was attacked by a group of people. Stones were thrown at his vehicle. In the process he ducked his head and drove on to escape. He collided with the plaintiff. The Court held that the doctrine of sudden emergency is applicable and held that the driver was not negligent.See also Mfihlo v Port Elizabeth Municipal Council 1976 (3) SA 183 (SE) b) In Samson v Winn 1977 (1) SA 761 (C) the defendant pressed the accelerator and not the brake when a man with a panga took a slash at him, hitting his vehicle and the defendant ducked forward and also swerved. As a result of the defendant’s action taken, he collided with the plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle. On 769 the Court held:“Samson had something less than 3 or 3,6 seconds in which to act. He instinctively ducked his head. He then carried out a left swing and then an over-correction towards the right, still while keeping his head down out of harm's way. The over-correction, I have no doubt, was also instinctive. We cannot, in my view, hold this man to have been negligent in all the circumstances of this case.” As this is a legal matter, should you dispute our decision on this claim, you have the prerogative to obtain the assistance of legal counsel to have the claim adjudicated in Court and for the Court to make a decision on the matter. Note that all our client’s rights remain reserved and should you pursue the matter in Court we will defend our client. Regards Gretchen Rubin
Listen this is all good and well but there is know information with regard to how much space those gentleman had to move out of the way. I'll assume they had enough space to move out of the way. The law also states that there must be a safe distance between two vehicles and there wasn't much if any between us. Besides that. It was peak time and the road was full of cars standing at a red robot so there wasn't any way for your client to get away whatsoever. She was blocked from the back, the front and the side and she didnt duck when knocking into me.
Common sense is also needed in this situation. Your clients pays insurance so that you can assist them in situations like this, but instead you try your best not to pay claims.
Your client was not even a metre away from me and why was her bag visible. Technically its her fault that her car was smashed and grabbed because her bag was visible. To be continued...
LI
Lance I's update27 Jan 2022, 18:59
Reviewer Update
One star is to much for a rating.
Your client knocked into me and this is how you respond to an innocent road user. You are unfair and borderline explointing this situation. You recieve millions per day and don't want to pay a few thousands.
This email is a joke sent by Gretchen Rubin: With regards to the aforementioned claim and the information at our disposal, we will not be entertaining your third party claim against our client. Our client whilst standing stationary at the robot experienced a smash and grab and a result of attempting to escape danger collided with your vehicle. We will not accept liability herein as our client was under attack and needed to escape danger.(My question: How could she, if she was right on top of me. If she was a distance, there would have been time to move away if there wasn't any traffic) . Below would be the case law pertaining to the mentioned incident Driver under attacka) In Msutu v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1991 (1) SA 583 (C) the driver of a vehicle was attacked by a group of people. Stones were thrown at his vehicle. In the process he ducked his head and drove on to escape. He collided with the plaintiff. The Court held that the doctrine of sudden emergency is applicable and held that the driver was not negligent.See also Mfihlo v Port Elizabeth Municipal Council 1976 (3) SA 183 (SE) b) In Samson v Winn 1977 (1) SA 761 (C) the defendant pressed the accelerator and not the brake when a man with a panga took a slash at him, hitting his vehicle and the defendant ducked forward and also swerved. As a result of the defendant’s action taken, he collided with the plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle. On 769 the Court held:“Samson had something less than 3 or 3,6 seconds in which to act. He instinctively ducked his head. He then carried out a left swing and then an over-correction towards the right, still while keeping his head down out of harm's way. The over-correction, I have no doubt, was also instinctive. We cannot, in my view, hold this man to have been negligent in all the circumstances of this case.” As this is a legal matter, should you dispute our decision on this claim, you have the prerogative to obtain the assistance of legal counsel to have the claim adjudicated in Court and for the Court to make a decision on the matter. Note that all our client’s rights remain reserved and should you pursue the matter in Court we will defend our client. Regards Gretchen Rubin
Listen this is all good and well but there is know information with regard to how much space those gentleman had to move out of the way. I'll assume they had enough space to move out of the way. The law also states that there must be a safe distance between two vehicles and there wasn't much if any between us. Besides that. It was peak time and the road was full of cars standing at a red robot so there wasn't any way for your client to get away whatsoever. She was blocked from the back, the front and the side and she didnt duck when knocking into me.
Common sense is also needed in this situation. Your clients pays insurance so that you can assist them in situations like this, but instead you try your best not to pay claims.
Your client was not even a metre away from me and why was her bag visible. Technically its her fault that her car was smashed and grabbed because her bag was visible. To be continued...
Your client knocked into me and this is how you respond to an innocent road user. You are unfair and borderline explointing this situation. You recieve millions per day and don't want to pay a few thousands.
This email is a joke sent by Gretchen Rubin: With regards to the aforementioned claim and the information at our disposal, we will not be entertaining your third party claim against our client. Our client whilst standing stationary at the robot experienced a smash and grab and a result of attempting to escape danger collided with your vehicle. We will not accept liability herein as our client was under attack and needed to escape danger.(My question: How could she, if she was right on top of me. If she was a distance, there would have been time to move away if there wasn't any traffic) . Below would be the case law pertaining to the mentioned incident Driver under attacka) In Msutu v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1991 (1) SA 583 (C) the driver of a vehicle was attacked by a group of people. Stones were thrown at his vehicle. In the process he ducked his head and drove on to escape. He collided with the plaintiff. The Court held that the doctrine of sudden emergency is applicable and held that the driver was not negligent.See also Mfihlo v Port Elizabeth Municipal Council 1976 (3) SA 183 (SE) b) In Samson v Winn 1977 (1) SA 761 (C) the defendant pressed the accelerator and not the brake when a man with a panga took a slash at him, hitting his vehicle and the defendant ducked forward and also swerved. As a result of the defendant’s action taken, he collided with the plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle. On 769 the Court held:“Samson had something less than 3 or 3,6 seconds in which to act. He instinctively ducked his head. He then carried out a left swing and then an over-correction towards the right, still while keeping his head down out of harm's way. The over-correction, I have no doubt, was also instinctive. We cannot, in my view, hold this man to have been negligent in all the circumstances of this case.” As this is a legal matter, should you dispute our decision on this claim, you have the prerogative to obtain the assistance of legal counsel to have the claim adjudicated in Court and for the Court to make a decision on the matter. Note that all our client’s rights remain reserved and should you pursue the matter in Court we will defend our client. Regards Gretchen Rubin
Listen this is all good and well but there is know information with regard to how much space those gentleman had to move out of the way. I'll assume they had enough space to move out of the way. The law also states that there must be a safe distance between two vehicles and there wasn't much if any between us. Besides that. It was peak time and the road was full of cars standing at a red robot so there wasn't any way for your client to get away whatsoever. She was blocked from the back, the front and the side and she didnt duck when knocking into me.
Common sense is also needed in this situation. Your clients pays insurance so that you can assist them in situations like this, but instead you try your best not to pay claims.
Your client was not even a metre away from me and why was her bag visible. Technically its her fault that her car was smashed and grabbed because her bag was visible. To be continued...