1 reviews | Active since Oct 2025
DO NOT TAKE - You as the policy holder NEED to be a machanic / vehicle manufacturer
I am extremely disappointed with the way my claim was handled by M-Sure and Centriq Insurance.
My claim related to the lower radiator air duct with flap control — a component that regulates airflow to the front heat exchangers and is clearly part of the cooling system. Despite this, my claim was repudiated purely because the part was not “explicitly listed” in the policy wording.
What concerns me most is that:
No comprehensive technical investigation was conducted to determine the component’s actual function within the cooling system.
The part was initially misidentified as belonging to the ventilation system, which is incorrect, I had to go to the dealership to provide proof as they did not do an investigation and only them did they reclassify the part.
Initially, the insurer rejected the claim as they had misidentified the part, in thier "investigation" , they provided an incorrect vehicle model and incorrect system. Then after I had notifieid the insurer that they did not do their due diligence, they then changed the rejection reason that that of which relies solely on whether the part was listed rather than assessing its functional relationship to covered components such as the radiator, thermostat, and oil cooler.
The claim was therefore rejected without due diligence, contrary to the insurer’s obligations under the Policyholder Protection Rules (Rule 17) and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles.
I raised these issues multiple times, but each response ignored the policy clause stating that “general naming conventions are used”, which means system-level coverage should apply.
After weeks of correspondence, I have still not received a fair resolution or acknowledgment of these procedural and technical errors.
Customers should be cautious when purchasing extended warranties marketed as “Bumper2Bumper Cover”, as the service received did not align with the product’s advertised intent or the standards of fairness expected in South Africa’s insurance industry.
Thank you for your feedback.
Due to the ongoing nature of the matter, it has been escalated to management for further review. This has also been communicated to you via email.
We will provide further updates as soon as we receive feedback from management.
Thank you
M-Sure
Thank you for your feedback.
Due to the ongoing nature of the matter, it has been escalated to management for further review. This has also been communicated to you via email.
We will provide further updates as soon as we receive feedback from management.
Thank you
M-Sure
- the policy clause stating that “general naming conventions are used,”
- the resultant-damage clause, and
- the insurer’s duty under Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) and Policyholder Protection Rule 17 to investigate and assess claims fairly.
- the policy clause stating that “general naming conventions are used,”
- the resultant-damage clause, and
- the insurer’s duty under Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) and Policyholder Protection Rule 17 to investigate and assess claims fairly.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We will investigate your concerns and revert to you soonest.
Thank you
M-Sure Team
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We will investigate your concerns and revert to you soonest.
Thank you
M-Sure Team
