King Price Unfairly dismisses my Claim

This is the most appauling car insurance company I have ever dealt with. I am disgusted at your after service and claims. My car was damaged by water during the heavy storms in Kzn on the 10th of October 2017 just like hundreds of other people. Opposing insurance companies paid out for water damaged yet you guys didn't! My car is covered for that. We have 5 vehicles insured under you guys and will be removing all of them from your pathetic insurance. It's been close to 5 months and my claim hasn't been paid. I advise future customers to stay away from king price as they don't pay claims which you are covered for.Further to add to this, the issue was handed over to the ombudsman and till date they have not even contacted me to assist. I am stuck paying installments and insurance for a vehicle which is a write off and my insurance company took my premiums but didn't pay out a claim. King Price are a bunch of ****** and I have pictures of the car at the scene of the incident to prove anything which is challenged by King Price.

Claim no:KP ********** /1

When they Rejected my claim this was the response I sent below to the ombudsman but haven't received any feedback.

I have been advised that my claim has been reupdiated due to the fact that incident happened before the cover commenced. The insurance company is claiming that the conditions of cover were not met.

I feel that there is something extremely immoral in the way that King Price has handled this matter.

They took premiums, knowing full well that they never intended to honour any claim.

They did not advise me that, even though I was diligently paying premiums, which they accepted, I would not enjoy cover.

If I was only enjoying limited cover, why were they taking the full premium?

Is it not reasonable for an insured person to assume that he has cover, when he is paying a full premium, on a new vehicle, and has not been advised by the insurance company that he doesn’t have cover?

The actions of King Price have financially compromised me:

They took 5 MONTHS to finalise this claim. This in itself is an indication that they knew that they had to settle, and were just trying to use technicalities to avoid doing the right thing.

All the while, I had to continue paying the premiums on the insurance in FULL.

I also had to continue paying the finance company.

I have not been treated fairly and I want them to also, in addition to my full settlement, pay the finance charges that I was forced to pay while they used delaying tactics.



The intention with the policy wording is to prevent the insurance company of being de*****ed. It allows the insurance company to determine whether there was any pre-exisiting damage to the vehicle, in order for them to note any pre-exisitng damage and to exclude that cover from the policy.

I bought this vehicle from a reputable dealer. It was immaculate, and this can be verified by the photos of the vehicle after the water damage.

The lack of ANY physical damage to the vehicle would be enough for us to conclude that the vehicle would have been insured if it had been inspected prior to the flood.

The rights of King Price have not been compromised, because we are able to see that there is NO pre-existing damage to the vehicle.

The policy wording specifically says that new vehicles need not be inspected. Since I bought the car, and it had not been insured before, I was under the impression that the vehicle did not need the inspection. It was a “new” car, bought from a dealer

The fact that the insurance company did not advise me to the contrary served to confirm my belief that I did not need to have the vehicle inspected.

At NO time did I receive any emails, sms, or any other communication telling me that I had to take my new car for an inspection.

If I had taken this cover with a broker, I would have been advised by the broker that I needed the inspection, and I would have been reminded of the requirement until it was received.

I was left to my own devices with no follow up support from the insurance company, whilst they knew that they never intended to settle a claim.

The incident in question was due to a huge flood that damaged the vehicle.

This had nothing to do with any pre-exisiting damage.

Any pre- exisiting damage could at this stage still be excluded from the claim, because the vehicle can be inspected for physical damage. There is NO damage to the vehicle. It is immaculate.

I believe that the insurance company is not treating me fairly.

They collected premiums, and as a matter of fact are still collecting premiums.

If I didn’t have cover, or if I had reduced cover, I should have been made aware of this.

When one buys a new car from a reputable dealer, it is a reasonable expectation that this vehicle will be considered a new car.

If the dealer can attest to the fact that the vehicle was in pristine condition, and if the vehicle would have been accepted on cover , I believe that it is extremely dishonest for the insurer to use this unrelated clause as a mechanism to repudate a genuine loss.

It is further pertinent that this loss was due to a natural, unavoidable peril. It was not a motor vehicle accident due to driver negligence. If this was a motor accident, it would be difficult to determine whether there was any pre-existing damage,but in this case it is irrelevant.

I believe that based on these aguments my claim should be settled in full by the insurance company