OUTSURANCE - USE OF UNQUALIFIED/NOT DISCIPLINE SPECIFICENGINEERS TO ASSESS CLAIMS

Subject: Request for Consumer Awareness and Investigation – OUTsurance Structural Damage Claim

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request your assistance in bringing public attention to a concerning insurance matter involving OUTsurance. My experience raises broader consumer-protection issues around claim handling, the use of underqualified/not discipline specific assessors/engineers, in the dismissal of legitimate expert evidence, and insurers prioritising cost reduction over fairness and contractual obligations. Termination of my cover to avoid future claims. Rejection of part of my claim due to the high cost of damages, yet a approving low cost damages pertaining to the same claim.

I believe this case has strong public-interest value and could help inform other homeowners of systemic challenges when claiming for structural damages.

1. Background – January 2024 Storm Damage

On 13–14 January 2024, my property in Verulam, KZN suffered serious structural damage during an extreme rainfall event. This included:

- Failure of retaining walls supporting the main dwelling and pool - Cracking to the dwelling - Cracking and leaks to the pool

The severity of this storm was widely documented in the press, on social media, and through local WhatsApp community groups. 2. OUTsurance’s Handling of the Claim

Although the insurer settled minor items (motors, electronics, etc.), the major structural component of the claim was rejected. Their appointed engineering consultant, Mr. Simon Osborn of SKP Engineers, produced multiple reports that I believe were fundamentally flawed, biased, and based on assumptions rather than measured evidence.

3. Evidence of Procedural and Professional Irregularities

3.1 Incorrect Identification of Retaining Wall Components

Mr. Osborn incorrectly identified the type of Loffelstien blocks used on my retaining wall and described factory-designed drainage slots as structural defects. These are basic structural engineering principles, and such misidentification is concerning from a professional forensic engineer.

3.2 Acting Outside His Area of Competence

Despite being a civil engineer, not a structural specialist, Mr. Osborn provided authoritative comments on:

- Biological identification (claiming the growth was “lichen”) - Meteorological analysis (interpreting rainfall data and return periods) - Geotechnical behaviour (foundation movement and backfill displacement)

All of these were later contradicted by independent specialists, demonstrating that his conclusions were both incorrect and outside his professional scope.

3.3 Independent Expert Evidence Ignored

I obtained specialist opinions from:

TME Engineers (Structural Specialists)

Sharon McFarlane (Plant Pathologist) – confirmed growth was algae/moss, not lichen

Innocent Mbokodo (Senior Scientist, SAWS) – confirmed triangulated rainfall data used by OUTsurance is unreliable for localised weather events

These findings directly disproved key arguments used by OUTsurance to reject the claim, yet the insurer continued to rely solely on SKP Engineers.

4. Attempts to Resolve the Issue Were Blocked by OUTsurance

Recognising the contradictions, I requested that we jointly appoint a suitably qualified STRUCTURAL engineer.

OUTsurance provided:

1. Mr Dennis Belter (Gadomski Consulting) – who turned out not to be an engineer at all.

2. Engineers from Ground Africa Consulting and Drennan Maud Consulting – all geotechnical, not specialized structural engineers.

Both times, OUTsurance refused to nominate a competent structural engineer despite my reasonable and repeated requests.

This process has now taken 1 year and 8 months, during which time my home has continued to deteriorate.

5. Cost-Driven Motive Behind Claim Rejection

A contractor who previously quoted me for repairs informed me that OUTsurance’s project manager contacted him, questioning:

“Why is your quote so excessive?”

“Can the Loffelstien blocks be reused?”

This demonstrates a clear cost-saving agenda, rather than an impartial assessment of structural risks or policy obligations.

6. Consumer Harm and Public Interest

My home remains structurally compromised, and OUTsurance has cancelled my structural cover since the dispute arose.

The combination of:

- Underqualified assessors - Dismissal of independent expert evidence - Cost-motivated decision-making - Refusal to appoint competent structural engineers - Procedural delays

are issues that can affect any policyholder who genuinely needs cover for structural damage following severe storms — events that are becoming increasingly common in South Africa.

7. Why I Am Approaching You

I believe this issue requires broader public awareness to protect other consumers who may find themselves in similar situations. The insurer’s processes, in my case, were not only flawed but systematically misaligned with professional, ethical, and fair-treatment standards.

I am willing to provide:

- All engineering reports (SKP, TME, specialists) - Email correspondence with OUTsurance - Photographs, videos, and storm records - Communications from contractors and specialists

Should you wish to investigate or publish a consumer-interest story, I will make all documentation available.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe sharing this experience will contribute meaningfully to public understanding of how structural insurance claims are handled and the obstacles consumers may face.

Kind Regards, Ashan Singh *** ***