Rejection of damage claims on the basis of legal technicalities, ignoring the insurers moral obligations of their clients

A short time ago I posted a review regarding Santam rejection of my claim for the damage caused by a collapsed boundary wall. After their internal arbitrator upheld their rejection the matter was referred to the Ombudsman for short term insurance. A reply was received late this afternoon in which the Ombudsman supported Santam's rejection of the claim, almost exclusively on the basis of the legal technicality that Santam re**** on in their rejection of the claim. Both Santam and the ombudsman emphasised that it is the onus is always on the insured to prove that the cause of the damage falls within the scope of the technical definition of what is insured, which is why the internal arbitrator of Santam referred me to the definition in the the Encyclopedea for Short Term insurance to explain what the insurance industry ostensibly understands fair wear and tare of any insured item to be. I wonder how many ordinary people in South Africa are even aware of this source of definitions that the insurance industry relies on, let alone how many have studied or even red this book. Santam, the internal arbitrator as well as the Ombudsman have been at pains to point out that every insured has the right to refer any insurance dispute to litigation at law, probably knowing full well that such an action cannot ever be viable - In my case referring the matter to litigation would imply the expenditure of approx R100 000-00 (probable costs indicated by a legal practitioner) in order to pursue a matter in which I could ast best win R68 000-00 - the same practitioner suggested that the insurance industry is well aware of this reality. I think that the general public should be made aware of the fact that Santam (I cannot refer to other insurers as I have no knowledge of them) will rely on legal technicalities and fine print in policies to avoid meeting their moral obligations to the persons from whom they will glibly and gladly take the monthly insurance premiums premiums, and I suggest this as I have become aware of a nearby neighbour who has had an identical experience with a damage claim for a collapsed boundary wall being rejected