VB
Victor B
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2025
19 Feb 2025, 13:30
Outsurance Defective Workmanship is based on false advertising
I took a defective workmanship policy y from Outsurance roughly 5years ago, it is a policy that supposed to cover my fire sprinkler installation business against defective workmanship. And such was a case for my business in December 2024, there was a flood at a client’s warehouse caused by defective workmanship, Outsurance refused to pay even though the event falls within the policy’s obligation to cover. Now I’m sitting with a R300k claim on me yet I had cover. For any business owner, please stay away from that policy, it’s cheap but they’ll not pay your claim. Rather choose established business insurance companies. Outsurance is just good in advertising that’s it, not in paying claims
Helpful (0)
Replies (1)0
Replies (1)
OUTsurance's replyOfficial
19 Feb 2025, 14:26Hello Victor
We are not at all insensitive to the financial loss you are incurring, following the rejection of your claim.
We however discussed our decision with you in detail, the 2 reasons below:
1) Late notification:
You only registered the claim 7 months after the incident occurred. We were therefore unable to inspect the immediate installation or the damages to the goods being claimed for and the claim could not be validated properly.
2) Prevention of loss, which is a requirement:You installed a sprinkler system into a building that is used as a warehouse. During the commissioning of the sprinkler system, a pipe and clamp came loose and caused the flooding of the boxes containing documents, which were affected. Our specialist was appointed and confirmed that it was a defective installation done which was still in existence and was noted to still pose a threat to the other party’s goods in storage.The expert’s finding was that the installation borders on recklessness and the incident is bound to re-occur.
We will at all times settle valid claims.
Regards
The OUTsurance Team
We are not at all insensitive to the financial loss you are incurring, following the rejection of your claim.
We however discussed our decision with you in detail, the 2 reasons below:
1) Late notification:
You only registered the claim 7 months after the incident occurred. We were therefore unable to inspect the immediate installation or the damages to the goods being claimed for and the claim could not be validated properly.
2) Prevention of loss, which is a requirement:You installed a sprinkler system into a building that is used as a warehouse. During the commissioning of the sprinkler system, a pipe and clamp came loose and caused the flooding of the boxes containing documents, which were affected. Our specialist was appointed and confirmed that it was a defective installation done which was still in existence and was noted to still pose a threat to the other party’s goods in storage.The expert’s finding was that the installation borders on recklessness and the incident is bound to re-occur.
We will at all times settle valid claims.
Regards
The OUTsurance Team
OUTsurance's reply19 Feb 2025, 14:26
Official
Hello Victor
We are not at all insensitive to the financial loss you are incurring, following the rejection of your claim.
We however discussed our decision with you in detail, the 2 reasons below:
1) Late notification:
You only registered the claim 7 months after the incident occurred. We were therefore unable to inspect the immediate installation or the damages to the goods being claimed for and the claim could not be validated properly.
2) Prevention of loss, which is a requirement:You installed a sprinkler system into a building that is used as a warehouse. During the commissioning of the sprinkler system, a pipe and clamp came loose and caused the flooding of the boxes containing documents, which were affected. Our specialist was appointed and confirmed that it was a defective installation done which was still in existence and was noted to still pose a threat to the other party’s goods in storage.The expert’s finding was that the installation borders on recklessness and the incident is bound to re-occur.
We will at all times settle valid claims.
Regards
The OUTsurance Team
We are not at all insensitive to the financial loss you are incurring, following the rejection of your claim.
We however discussed our decision with you in detail, the 2 reasons below:
1) Late notification:
You only registered the claim 7 months after the incident occurred. We were therefore unable to inspect the immediate installation or the damages to the goods being claimed for and the claim could not be validated properly.
2) Prevention of loss, which is a requirement:You installed a sprinkler system into a building that is used as a warehouse. During the commissioning of the sprinkler system, a pipe and clamp came loose and caused the flooding of the boxes containing documents, which were affected. Our specialist was appointed and confirmed that it was a defective installation done which was still in existence and was noted to still pose a threat to the other party’s goods in storage.The expert’s finding was that the installation borders on recklessness and the incident is bound to re-occur.
We will at all times settle valid claims.
Regards
The OUTsurance Team