1 reviews | Active since Mar 2015
I QUESTION WHO ARE THE REAL THEIVES
I was insured through FFW. One night we had items ****** from our yard. Now FFW cover you for theft. However there is a clause - there must be signs of forced entry. According to our ******** Law definitions, theft is merely when your belongings are appropriated by another, no forced entry required. Burglary is the ******** entry into a structure, such as a home, with the intent to commit a crime inside. ******* requires violence or threat to appropriate. Right! Now if FFW state they cover you for theft, but put in that clause for forced entry, then they are even excluding burglary as a burglar can walk in, climb in through a window etc without using forced entry. So if you are confused then I am too. What they are protecting themselves from then is anything ****** where force is not used ergo they only cover you for *******? We took the matter to their disputes department and still declined even though they are changing the legal definition of theft. That is simply unconstitutional! I indicated I wished to cancel my insurance but had not yet signed any such document, nor got through to cancellation department, only to find it cancelled for me?! Go figure. BE WARNED.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We confirm that contact has been established with the Customer Relations Team, via electronic mail.
We acknowledge the concerns raised and the comments around the definition of theft. We do however make reference to the Insurance Contract and the exclusions therein.
Theft is indeed an Insured peril, however the exclusion applies when there is no forced visible entry, due to the nature of the risk.
We furthermore confirm that the merits of the case were reviewed by the Internal Dispute Resolution Department where the decision was upheld, we too agree that the decision remains unchanged.
We extend our apologies for the inconvenience caused.
Kind Regards,
The First for Women Team
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We confirm that contact has been established with the Customer Relations Team, via electronic mail.
We acknowledge the concerns raised and the comments around the definition of theft. We do however make reference to the Insurance Contract and the exclusions therein.
Theft is indeed an Insured peril, however the exclusion applies when there is no forced visible entry, due to the nature of the risk.
We furthermore confirm that the merits of the case were reviewed by the Internal Dispute Resolution Department where the decision was upheld, we too agree that the decision remains unchanged.
We extend our apologies for the inconvenience caused.
Kind Regards,
The First for Women Team