OUTsurance Warranty Department

On 14 March 2015, I lodged a claim with OUTsurance (Claim Number: ***). I was instructed to take my car to any RMI-approved workshop for diagnosis because I suspected the car was mixing oil and water. I clearly communicated this issue when filing the claim. On Monday, 17 March, I took my car to B Mobile Mechanic. They diagnosed the car and recommended a coolant flush. I also requested them to replace the serpentine belt tensioner, which is a routine maintenance task. However, during this maintenance, the engine seized. B Mobile accepted responsibility for the engine damage and contacted their insurer, which is also OUTsurance. OUTsurance then sent their assessor to inspect the damage at B Mobile. What I cannot understand is how OUTsurance decided to pay B Mobile for an engine rebuild when the damage occurred during what should have been a simple maintenance job. The assessor should have recognized that B Mobile was not capable of successfully rebuilding the engine. Instead, OUTsurance chose to save money by approving an engine rebuild rather than doing the right thing, which would have been to replace the engine and settle the car with the bank for a permanent solution. They knew the car needed an engine replacement or settlement, yet they ended up paying for an engine rebuild. The car only drove less than 350 km after the rebuild before the engine started knocking. Both OUTsurance and their assessor acted negligently. It is clear that B Mobile was not equipped to perform a successful engine rebuild, and OUTsurance should take full accountability for this matter.

Thank you for your response. While I acknowledge that the liability claim was lodged under the workshop’s insurance policy, my serious concern lies with OUTsurance’s decision-making in authorising an engine rebuild instead of opting for the only reasonable and permanent solution — engine replacement. This choice to approve a rebuild rather than a replacement was not only short-sighted but negligent. It directly led to the vehicle’s ongoing failure, with the engine knocking after less than 350 km post-rebuild. OUTsurance, as a professional insurer, has a duty to act in the best interests of the policyholder and ensure that claims are handled with due care and diligence. Approving a rebuild by a workshop that was clearly incapable of delivering a successful repair demonstrates a failure to uphold this duty. This decision has caused me unnecessary financial loss, ongoing inconvenience, and stress. I demand that OUTsurance urgently revisit this decision and provide a permanent solution — either by replacing the engine or settling the vehicle finance with the bank — without any further delay.

my primary concern remains unaddressed: OUTsurance’s decision to approve and fund an engine rebuild rather than the correct and permanent solution of replacing the engine or settling the car with the bank. It is unacceptable that OUTsurance, through its assessor, chose a cost-saving route that has led to continued mechanical failure—evidenced by the engine knocking after less than 350 km post-rebuild.