1 reviews | Active since May 2016
Rejected claim
My vehicle KIA K2700 WORKHORSE P/U S/C (***5) was hijacked on the 01 June 2022. The vehicle could not be recovered.
The insurer of vehicle was Prime Meridian Direct with policy number: MX***. The hijacked incident was reported/lodged to Prime Meridian Direct on the 02 June 2022.
Policy Benefit: Main Benefit:
1. The insurer agreed to pay for the theft and hijacking a retail value from the original inception date of 07 August 2019. 2. Monthly premiums were debited from my bank account from inception date on the 07 August 2019 till the incident date of the 01 June 2022.
On the 25 July 2022, I was informed the claim was rejected due to the vehicle used for commercial basis. I appealed after going through trauma of loosing a vehicle and got a slap in the face with a claim rejection by the insurer.
PMD breached out of its contract by doing the following: • Provided multiple contract terms and definitions, this mislead the policyholder • PMD did not adhere to its terms and conditions when they debited its client monthly premiums as per schedule, this confirmed coverage and active policy • Insurer lacked understanding of the types and use of vehicles under their coverage • Insurer covered the LDV design classification as a “WORKHORSE” and knew its usage • On the time of the incident, they is no proof or evidence of any cancellation of the policy • The monthly premium on the day of an incident was debited on the client’s bank account.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this matter with us.
We have located your policy and commit to providing preliminary feedback within two business days.
Assuring you of our continued best endeavours.
Kind regards,
The PMD Team
Thank you for taking the time to raise this matter with us.
We have located your policy and commit to providing preliminary feedback within two business days.
Assuring you of our continued best endeavours.
Kind regards,
The PMD Team
See my response, ypu as PMD breached the contract by doing the following:
• Provided multiple contract terms and definitions, this mislead the policyholder
• PMD did not adhere to its terms and conditions when you debited me as a client monthly premiums as per schedule, this confirmed coverage and active policy
• Insurer lacked understanding of the types and use of vehicles under their coverage
• Insurer covered the LDV design classification as a “WORKHORSE” and knew its usage
• On the time of the incident, they is no proof or evidence of any cancellation of the policy
• The monthly premium on the day of an incident was debited on the client’s bank account.
No passengers payed a fare on the vehicle in question. The fact remains you as a service provider looked for an easy way out to pay for a hijacked vehicle and looked for loop holes in the contractual agreement.
Kind Regards
Bonginkosi S
See my response, ypu as PMD breached the contract by doing the following:
• Provided multiple contract terms and definitions, this mislead the policyholder
• PMD did not adhere to its terms and conditions when you debited me as a client monthly premiums as per schedule, this confirmed coverage and active policy
• Insurer lacked understanding of the types and use of vehicles under their coverage
• Insurer covered the LDV design classification as a “WORKHORSE” and knew its usage
• On the time of the incident, they is no proof or evidence of any cancellation of the policy
• The monthly premium on the day of an incident was debited on the client’s bank account.
No passengers payed a fare on the vehicle in question. The fact remains you as a service provider looked for an easy way out to pay for a hijacked vehicle and looked for loop holes in the contractual agreement.
Kind Regards
Bonginkosi S