Serious Concerns Regarding Pineapple Insurance’s Claims Handling

I am extremely disappointed with the way Pineapple Insurance has handled my recent claim following damage to my vehicle.

When I contacted Pineapple to submit a claim for the repairs, I was informed about an additional excess and was also told that, where the cost of the repairs is below the excess, it would “make financial sense” for me to pay for the repairs from my own pocket.

I immediately asked for the specific clause in my policy Terms and Conditions that states that damages or claims below the basic excess are not covered and must be paid for by the policyholder.

Despite asking repeatedly, I was never provided with such a clause.

I even asked Pineapple to review the recorded call because I was informed that calls are recorded for quality purposes. I wanted them to verify exactly what had been communicated to me. I was subsequently told that they had listened to the recording and established that I had not been informed about an under-age excess as initially suggested. They did confirm that an excess relating to the policy being less than six months old had been discussed, which I acknowledged.

However, my main question remained completely unanswered:

Where in the Terms and Conditions that I agreed to does it state that if the cost of a claim is below the basic excess, Pineapple will not cover the damage and the policyholder must pay for the repairs themselves?

To date, I have still not been provided with a clause that answers this question.

I then escalated the matter to the manager, Khaya. Unfortunately, instead of properly addressing my concerns, Khaya hung up the call. Since then, I have received no response or follow-up from him whatsoever.

I also dealt with Seipati, who sent me an email containing a letter relating to the quotation, despite my request being very straightforward: I asked for the full quotation. She did not provide what I requested and has also failed to follow up with me.

My concern is not simply about the outcome of my claim. It is about transparency, contractual obligations, accountability and professional customer service.

If Pineapple's position is that claims below the basic excess are not covered, then I expect them to point me to the exact clause in the policy Terms and Conditions that I signed. Telling a paying customer that it “makes financial sense” to pay for repairs from their own pocket is not a substitute for providing the contractual basis for that decision.

I have insurance specifically so that I know what protection I am paying for. I should not have to repeatedly ask an insurance provider to show me the contractual provision upon which its decision is based.

The manner in which this matter has been handled, including the failure to provide the requested clause, the lack of proper follow-up, the incomplete response regarding the quotation, and most importantly, the manager Khaya terminating my call instead of addressing my concerns, is completely unacceptable.

If this matter is not properly rectified and Pineapple cannot provide me with a clear contractual basis for its position, I am prepared to escalate this matter through the appropriate formal and legal channels.

Customers deserve clear answers, proper documentation, professionalism and accountability. Pineapple Insurance needs to take responsibility for how this matter has been handled and provide me with a proper, evidence-based response.