Not-so Royalty Afterall
<p>I was ofcourse lured into believing I'm being given royal treatment as I cancelled my policy with another insurance to start with king price. I took household contents insurance with portable device for my Samngsung Note3. Later I bought a laptop and called in to update my policy for the laptop but I was told it automatically falls within the household contents policy. 3 weeks ago I had my laptop bag ****** from my car along with other valuables (bank cards, External HD backup, phone, documents). I called in for a claim and I was told my laptop was not insured under portable devices. I explained what I was told and the representative said he'll have to go and check for the phone call recording, meanwhile he rejected my claim. He game me their so-called Ombudsman email through the rejection letter. I've emailed the Ombudsman with the same details and got a response email a week later saying they'll take 7-10 working days. It's been over 20 days and nearly a month now. I called back the insurance asking for Ombudsman contact, the agent slammed my request saying they don't have the Ombudsman contacts. I have to get them from them directly - email. I emailed agan requesting their contacts. Problem is they don't respond back. </p> <p>So whatever happened to the royalty treatment when I'm being ignored and shut-off. The insurance is hoping I give up, just go away with frustrtaion and find another insurance so they don't pay-out. It benefits them for all my installments, but when it comes down to client value, they're the same as the ****** down the street. Now I'm falling behind my work without other options as I can't afford another laptop right now. I want justice and fairness.</p>
Hi Fidel
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond as follows :
I have considered the details of your email / complaint as well as the facts in respect of the claim and wish to provide you with the following feedback.
Your claim was rejected because you did not enjoy cover for your laptop as it had not been specified. Further to this there was no visible signs of forced entry into the vehicle, which is a specific exclusion on your policy.
I note from your correspondence that you had called to update your policy with your laptop and that you were advised that it falls under the contents section of the policy. I have listened to this call which our IDRD department has sent to you and In this call the consultant clearly advises you
that should you wish to have cover for your laptop outside of the home you would need to specify the item. He further asked you whether you would like to specify your laptop and you declined this cover. I take further note that you cannot find the exclusion regarding visible signs of forced entry.
Kindly refer to page 49 of your King Price Policy Document: Considering the above, I cannot fault the decision made by King Price to reject the claim as
you did not enjoy cover for loss as the item has not been specified.
We trust the above is on order, should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact.
Royal regards
The kings court
Hi Fidel
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond as follows :
I have considered the details of your email / complaint as well as the facts in respect of the claim and wish to provide you with the following feedback.
Your claim was rejected because you did not enjoy cover for your laptop as it had not been specified. Further to this there was no visible signs of forced entry into the vehicle, which is a specific exclusion on your policy.
I note from your correspondence that you had called to update your policy with your laptop and that you were advised that it falls under the contents section of the policy. I have listened to this call which our IDRD department has sent to you and In this call the consultant clearly advises you
that should you wish to have cover for your laptop outside of the home you would need to specify the item. He further asked you whether you would like to specify your laptop and you declined this cover. I take further note that you cannot find the exclusion regarding visible signs of forced entry.
Kindly refer to page 49 of your King Price Policy Document: Considering the above, I cannot fault the decision made by King Price to reject the claim as
you did not enjoy cover for loss as the item has not been specified.
We trust the above is on order, should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact.
Royal regards
The kings court
I appreciate the reply. I still do not appreciate the way business was handled. During the conversaton with the agent I declined what I understood. Your people should stop using technical jargon as I thought I was saying no to having amendments such as adjustment on how much I'm paying of household contents- as in past experiences I've been offererd to make those amendments. I will concede that I now understand what the agent was saying because I'm now fami**** with your language and what is referred to certain sections. Therefore I did not insure the laptop as a separate portable device.
On the policy matter. I do not have a policy that has a so-called page 46. My policy document is 7 pages and nowhere does it talk about those conditions. However, because I did not take up the insurance for the laptop as a portable possession, it doesn't matter at this point. But it concerns me on the basis of my phone which is insured as a portable device. What then when it gets ****** or lost, which conditions are there that I'm not aware of? When I was sold the policy I was told WHATEVER happens to the Note3 so long as it is insured, I should have peace of mind. But now I'm having doubts.
So there's rights and wrongs from both side. However, I still got a ****py service and attitude when I lodged an inquiry on the claim process. Therefore I'll change my review to fair.
I appreciate the reply. I still do not appreciate the way business was handled. During the conversaton with the agent I declined what I understood. Your people should stop using technical jargon as I thought I was saying no to having amendments such as adjustment on how much I'm paying of household contents- as in past experiences I've been offererd to make those amendments. I will concede that I now understand what the agent was saying because I'm now fami**** with your language and what is referred to certain sections. Therefore I did not insure the laptop as a separate portable device.
On the policy matter. I do not have a policy that has a so-called page 46. My policy document is 7 pages and nowhere does it talk about those conditions. However, because I did not take up the insurance for the laptop as a portable possession, it doesn't matter at this point. But it concerns me on the basis of my phone which is insured as a portable device. What then when it gets ****** or lost, which conditions are there that I'm not aware of? When I was sold the policy I was told WHATEVER happens to the Note3 so long as it is insured, I should have peace of mind. But now I'm having doubts.
So there's rights and wrongs from both side. However, I still got a ****py service and attitude when I lodged an inquiry on the claim process. Therefore I'll change my review to fair.
Hi Fidel
Our internal ombudsman has emailed you a response to your above response which we have pasted below :
"Dear Fidel
I have again listened to the call and do not believe that the consultant could have been any clearer in stating that you would not enjoy cover for your laptop outside of the home and further did not use any jargon without explaining himself.
I have also not made reference to your policy schedule; which consists of about 7 pages; but rather your King Price Policy Document in which the exclusion is presented. I attached the latest version of this document to the email I sent you, however I have further attached a copy of the email sent to you on 08.10.2014 with the very same exclusion being presented on page 49. As a policy holder you are required to fami****ise yourself with the contents of your contract and considering that this was sent to you previously, you had ample time to do so.
I note that you have concerns regarding the cover of your cell phone. Kindly refer to the “KPPD” which I attached to my previous email and fami****ise yourself with the conditions of your contract.
Should you have any questions regarding the conditions of your contract, you are welcome to discuss these with me and I will answer you as best I can.
Trusting you find this in order.
Regards
Cherie Wilson"
Hi Fidel
Our internal ombudsman has emailed you a response to your above response which we have pasted below :
"Dear Fidel
I have again listened to the call and do not believe that the consultant could have been any clearer in stating that you would not enjoy cover for your laptop outside of the home and further did not use any jargon without explaining himself.
I have also not made reference to your policy schedule; which consists of about 7 pages; but rather your King Price Policy Document in which the exclusion is presented. I attached the latest version of this document to the email I sent you, however I have further attached a copy of the email sent to you on 08.10.2014 with the very same exclusion being presented on page 49. As a policy holder you are required to fami****ise yourself with the contents of your contract and considering that this was sent to you previously, you had ample time to do so.
I note that you have concerns regarding the cover of your cell phone. Kindly refer to the “KPPD” which I attached to my previous email and fami****ise yourself with the conditions of your contract.
Should you have any questions regarding the conditions of your contract, you are welcome to discuss these with me and I will answer you as best I can.
Trusting you find this in order.
Regards
Cherie Wilson"
Are you tired of me as your client? I believe I made it clear that I am not in possession of the one document and have the later which is only 7 pages. The outline Ombudsman is referring to is one I'm not fami**** with. What is this about now, proving that I'm somewhat lying?
I thought I made it clear that I misunderstood the phone conversation, maybe it was the clear noise at the background or my phone at the time and the language used, but I had understood that my laptop was insured. This is now becoming irritating and insulting. I have other options if King Price doesn't want me to insure with them moving onwards.
Are you tired of me as your client? I believe I made it clear that I am not in possession of the one document and have the later which is only 7 pages. The outline Ombudsman is referring to is one I'm not fami**** with. What is this about now, proving that I'm somewhat lying?
I thought I made it clear that I misunderstood the phone conversation, maybe it was the clear noise at the background or my phone at the time and the language used, but I had understood that my laptop was insured. This is now becoming irritating and insulting. I have other options if King Price doesn't want me to insure with them moving onwards.
Can you supply me with the date you emailed me the full policy document. I have searched through my emails with King Price and have found the summary document alone, not the referenced full disclosure.
Can you supply me with the date you emailed me the full policy document. I have searched through my emails with King Price and have found the summary document alone, not the referenced full disclosure.
Further response has been emailed to you.
Royal regards
The kings court
Further response has been emailed to you.
Royal regards
The kings court