THE TRUTH ABOUT OUTSURANCE AND HOW THEY UNDULY INFLUENCE THEIR CLIENT'S TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM

During December 2020 I shopped around for insurance quotes for my very first vehicle. I knew that I did not have a risk profile and my premium would be a little higher as it normally would have been. However, I diligently acquired all the relevant information from all the Insurers who provided me with compatible quotes.

I received a call from Outsurance and the consultant was very pleasant and she even accommodated my busy schedule. She explained that because I have no insurance history, I should expect a high premium because I still need to build my risk profile. That was totally understandable.

Furthermore, she advised that I would be eligible for a discount in my premium within 3 months from the inception date of the policy.

Last week, I contacted Oucsurance and advised that I need to change my residential address and obviously I know that it will influence my premium. However, I am eligible for a discount as per the advices provided to me on the inception date.

To my surprise I was rudely awaken by the fact that there was a misrepresentation on the inception date. I requested for the recording of the calls and the consultant advised that I will be provided with same, however to date they failed to forward same to me.

Today, I was assisted by Cheslin who advised that there was indeed a misrepresentation and the dispute will be submitted to another department. As per a further telecom between myself and Cheslin, he advised that the said department advised that there is nothing the can do and his manager wanted to assist with a mere R 50.00 discount in the premium.

Firstly, I want to make consumers aware that there is a legal obligation on the Insurer to ensure that a valid agreement is entered into between them and the Insured. In this regard I wish to advise that should the Insured fail to make any disclosure, the Insurer tends to reject the claim/avoid cover due to material non disclosure.

Secondly, I wish to emphasize that the agreement was entered into based on the misrepresentation, which created an expectation of a future discount. This means that I acted on an untrue statement or false advises by the consultant who assisted me at the inception stage of my policy.

My question now is, would it be justifiable for Outsurance to rely on the new risk address being the reason for the increase of my premium or does their misrepresentation render the contract between myself and Outsance void abinitio? If so, should they be compensating me for the premiums already paid? I wonder what the FSCA would rule in terms of this set of facts