RENASA IS STILL THE WORST - BUNCH OF ****** - LOOK AT REVIEWS - ALL THE SAME

THIS IS THE FEEDBACK FROM RENASA - AGAIN TRYING TO AVOID LIABILITY !!! ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT - PRINCETON SECURITY

Good day,

I refer to your complaint received by our offices and write to advise that our Head of Legal and Compliance has looked into your matter and has made the following decision:

“It appears that our insured executed a right hand turn in the face of oncoming traffic. The [Third Party] (TP) was travelling on the LH lane and was not easily visible to the insured driver. There were in fact several misses between turning vehicles and oncoming vehicles prior to this collision. It is also obvious that the TP was travelling at speed and that the driver of this vehicle made no effort to slow down when entering the intersection or to avoid a collision by braking or swerving out. It was also raining at the time and visibility may have been restricted.

I would assess the respective degrees of negligence at 70/30 % in favour of the third party.”

Kind Regards

Zilokoto Mpontshane ........................... MY REPLY BELOW

Good Day

Please note , relook at the video, I was traveling within the speed limit [ video recording sped up ] , I did brake & turn to the left [ see from 8sec on ] to try and avoid the Princeton vehicle. Had I done a hard left I would have hit the curb & pole. The Princeton vehicle did not observe oncoming traffic & did not brake or make any attempt to avoid the collision. Please relook & revert back soonest as this outcome is wholly unacceptable.

I have been back & forth in this regard on countless occasions. It is mind boggling how you can apportion blame to myself & try to avoid liability in this regard. Please stop looking for loopholes & excuses to avoid accountability. Use common sense in what was your client's fault & do the right thing.

I will await your feedback.

Yours Sincerely

Carlo Brown ......................................

I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter.

4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter:

RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)).

Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE CASE LAW APPLICABLE TO YOUR FINDING. ................................................... Good day,

Please kindly note that the Head of Legal and Compliance is the final escalation step in our internal remedies and he has looked at your email below and your complaint and has not changed his decision being:

An apportionment of 70/30 % in favour of the third party.

Please kindly note that OCLS will advise you on the next steps you may take should you still not be happy with the decision.

Kind Regards

Zilokoto Mpontshane