Delay in the settlement of an insurance dispute - callous disregard of insurance client interests or deliberate strategy to avoid the insurer's responsibility

In response to the second review I posted regarding Santam's rejection of my claim for damage caused by a collapsed boundary wall on my property, the Ombudsman for short term insurance indicated that if I reverted to him, a Mr Anyanda Mwazi, giving the proper reference, he would "...explain the outcome to me - this in spite of a clear response had been sent to me from the office of the said ombudsman. The day after his communication, being the 12th of October 2021, I did revert to him giving the proper reference. To date I have not heard a word from him. After my posting of the third review on Monday this week, Santam's complaints division informed me on Wednesday that I should contact the same Ombudsman again giving the same reference, which I did immediately, while at the same time sending this division of Santam copies of my communications to the ombudsman. This complaints division also indicated that the matter was still under consideration which suggested to me that a different outcome was till under consideration. They also sent a separate "...private..." communication to me via Hello Peter. to which I rep**** immediately. Yesterday afternoon this same complaints division of Santam sent me another e-mail stating that as the matter was "...still active with the Ombudsman..." and he was the regulator of the industry, they were not allowed (by law ???) to communicate with me and that their previous communication regarding their previous communication that they would be contacting me shortly was in fact a "...electronically generated response ...". The complete debacle of the handling of this matter, including the various responses to the rejection of the claim based on what in my opinion is a deliberately pursued legal technicality hidden in the fine print of the insurance policy, and the seemingly deliberate delay in finalising the matter after my posting of my dissatisfaction with the rejection on the Hello Peter website, promotes the rebuttable conclusion that, as the matter has now een dragging on for two (2) months, either Santa and the Ombudsman has a callous disregard of the clients of insurers or are engaged in a deliberate strategy to draw out the settlement of the matter until the client cancels the insurance policy in frustration which will then allow Santam to simply walk away from their responsibility on the basis of this cancellation.