1 reviews | Active since Feb 2013
Excuses to not pay out, pathetic service
<p>Recently had a theft from a vehicle where my car key and cellphone of mine was ******. It took me more than 4 phone calls and having to shame King Price on social media before anyone phoned me back to start the claims proces. My claim is now being repudated 3days later, because of some pathetic excuse on page 49 of their terms and conditions according to the consultant Barbara. I have never recieved any list of terms and conditions - especially nothing 49 pages long , only been sent Policy schedules. Both the car and cellphone are specified and insured with King Price.</p>
Hi Johannes
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond, we note that Monique the team manager in our claims department was in contact with you regarding the outcome of your claim.We note that your claim was rejected based on the fact that there was no visible signs of forced entry into the unoccupied vehicle your items where ****** from. As with majority of the insurers in SA it is too high risk to cover items ****** from the inside of an unoccupied vehicle as well as the fact that there was no forced entry into the vehicle.
We refer to the following terms stated in your policy wording :
''Portable Possessions What’s NOT covered by the king You’re not covered for items inside an unoccupied car There’s no cover for the loss of, or damage to, items that are left inside an unoccupied car, unless they are: Concealed in the enclosed storage areas, such as the cubbyhole, boot or under retractable or removable boot covers. This doesn’t apply to baby or toddler seats. There must also be visible signs that the car was broken into. ''
Based on the above your claim was rejected as it was confirmed that there was no damage to the vehicle whatsoever in order to gain entry. We are really sorry that we where unable to assist you in this instance and that you feel we have let you down. Unfortunately the outcome would have been the same with majority of the insurers in South Africa.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us directly.
Royal regards
The kings court
Hi Johannes
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond, we note that Monique the team manager in our claims department was in contact with you regarding the outcome of your claim.We note that your claim was rejected based on the fact that there was no visible signs of forced entry into the unoccupied vehicle your items where ****** from. As with majority of the insurers in SA it is too high risk to cover items ****** from the inside of an unoccupied vehicle as well as the fact that there was no forced entry into the vehicle.
We refer to the following terms stated in your policy wording :
''Portable Possessions What’s NOT covered by the king You’re not covered for items inside an unoccupied car There’s no cover for the loss of, or damage to, items that are left inside an unoccupied car, unless they are: Concealed in the enclosed storage areas, such as the cubbyhole, boot or under retractable or removable boot covers. This doesn’t apply to baby or toddler seats. There must also be visible signs that the car was broken into. ''
Based on the above your claim was rejected as it was confirmed that there was no damage to the vehicle whatsoever in order to gain entry. We are really sorry that we where unable to assist you in this instance and that you feel we have let you down. Unfortunately the outcome would have been the same with majority of the insurers in South Africa.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us directly.
Royal regards
The kings court