M & F specified ALL risks = LIMITED risks

I insured my laptop (worth R 22 000 ) with M & F under the Specified ALL risk section of my policy. As a laptop is a \mobile\" device and being an area manager was then the unfortunate victim of \"alarm blocking/jamming\". Upon submitting my claim to M & F I was then informed that as per their policy wording (which I never received) there was an exclusion of \"visible forcible entry\" being a criteria in order to get my claim paid out. 90% of vehicle theft's occur when your vehicle's alarm is jammed. They do not specifically \"exclude\" this form of theft from either their policy wording. Had M & F FULLY DISCLOSED this exclusion, I would have insured my laptop with another Insurer that either offered a waiver in the form of a higher premium (HOLLARD) or included this form of theft. <br> Originally M & F said they would pay me out 75% of the value of my laptop. The claims agent (Tshepiso Simelane) himself could not even understand M & F's own wording, as this person could not even accurately calculate the excess. Once I complained, M & F reduced my payment to R 10 000. My mails to them go unanswered and despite the instruction from the Ombud, make no attempt at resolution!"