1 reviews | Active since Mar 2018
king Price Making Us Eat King Pie
Wife submitted a claim with king price, Were she stated that she has lost her Handbag and inside she had other items. On registering the claim she mentions to the claims advisor that she went to visit her Uncle at a flat, were she left her bag inside the one of the plastics which had groceries. then she inform King price that when she got home late, it's when she realized that some of the Plastics were gone including the one that had her extra phone. She further informs the advisor that 'she does not know as to what actually happened", with her being honest she says" maybe they jammed the car when we were locking it" but there's no damages to the car. Advisor: Ms Florence Letsoalo then informs her that her claim is going to be rejected at that point in time. on the 8th March I received a missed call from king Price and then on the 9th my wife receive a new policy schedule. I then contacted King Price and the Advisor Mr Sebastian Makitla answered the phone.
I asked the Advisor: What was the rejection reason, He mentioned that Florence rejected the claim on No visible signs of Forced entry.
I then continued to asked him the following questions: 1. Since the submitting of the claim the advisor never called to verify the incident with whoever my wife was with? 2. Also was there any becon or bills checked first to confirm that the phone was lost from the incident place as she has prescribed. 3. As my wife only spoke about 2 places where she stopped, why was it not confirmed if those were the only places that she went to, what if there's proof that she could have stopped elsewhere before going home and the plastics got lost there. As she mentioned that "some of the plastics were not there including the one with the items" 4. How did they confirm that the car was Jammed because my wife said maybe and on her basis of presumption she actually shot herself in the foot for suggesting that it could have been lost via that Car jamming incident. And that the rest they use to reject her claim.
My issue is no thorough work was done prior to the claim was rejected, but rejected on the presumption that my wife said to them. no other facts are being mentioned to show the validity of their rejection.
I asked them that please refund the premiums of the items that you feel are not insured or of the whole policy and cancel our contract.
Some type of professionalism is needed and not prejudice the client for being honest by SUGGESTING that it might be the has been jammed.
Good day Mokwana
Our claims department has been in contact with you to discuss your complaint and the reason for the outcome of the claim. We refer to the following excerpt from the policy document :
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’re:
• 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 booster seats.
• The amount that we’ll pay for any item ****** from the boot of the car is limited
to the maximum amount that’s noted on your policy schedule.
• There must also be visible signs that the car was broken into.
• If the items that you‘re claiming for were stored in the loading area of an LDV
and were concealed under hard-wearing, or locked load covers, there must also
be visible signs that the load cover was broken into.
• Items that are concealed under canvas covers aren’t covered.
Ask the king
• If the ****** items were stored in the loading area of an LDV with a canopy and
the canopy’s windows are covered with ‘smash-and-grab’ safety film of at least
100 micron and with visibility of 35% or less, there must also be visible signs that
the canopy was broken into.
• There’s no cover, at all, if any of the following items are left in the loading area:
- Cellphones.
- Computer, audiovisual and photographic equipment
Should you dispute the outcome of the claim kindly follow the procedure noted on the letter that was emailed to you by claims.
Royal regards
The kings court
Good day Mokwana
Our claims department has been in contact with you to discuss your complaint and the reason for the outcome of the claim. We refer to the following excerpt from the policy document :
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’re:
• 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 booster seats.
• The amount that we’ll pay for any item ****** from the boot of the car is limited
to the maximum amount that’s noted on your policy schedule.
• There must also be visible signs that the car was broken into.
• If the items that you‘re claiming for were stored in the loading area of an LDV
and were concealed under hard-wearing, or locked load covers, there must also
be visible signs that the load cover was broken into.
• Items that are concealed under canvas covers aren’t covered.
Ask the king
• If the ****** items were stored in the loading area of an LDV with a canopy and
the canopy’s windows are covered with ‘smash-and-grab’ safety film of at least
100 micron and with visibility of 35% or less, there must also be visible signs that
the canopy was broken into.
• There’s no cover, at all, if any of the following items are left in the loading area:
- Cellphones.
- Computer, audiovisual and photographic equipment
Should you dispute the outcome of the claim kindly follow the procedure noted on the letter that was emailed to you by claims.
Royal regards
The kings court