Always a little asterisk somewhere!

I opened up a claim with OUTsurance on Thursday past, after my vehicle was broken into in Cape Town. The vehicle battery was ******, my camera bag with various equipment and gear inside as well as my iPad I use for editing my footage.

After making contact with SAPS, they confirmed it was a remote-jamming related crime and that all their camera's are being monitored for the ******** activity that took place.

After requesting a full breakdown of the event, with photos to prove I owned the items that were ****** from the boot of my car - this is to prove it was NOT out in the open of my car's front or backseats. Now, Outsurance informs me they can only cover to the value of R10 000 due to "no forced entry" to the motor vehicle. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

So I asked the consultant whether they are received an increase in vehicle related crime that links to remote-jamming, to which she rep**** Yes, a whole lot more these days.

I asked what that indicates to you as service providers, and she told me that the client's should double-check their cars before walking off.

Excuse me! But if you don't think your policy is absolutely ******* and that you are prepared to lose more clients then please, continue to act so ******** to your much-needed policy change to cater for victims of these crimes.

So happy to take money from us, but ALWAYS an issue when it comes to pay-outs from what I could tell by reading other comments here.

Really messed up guys! As a Government employee, I will make sure this reaches all eyes