TC
Thabani C
1 reviews | Active since May 2023
25 Oct 2023, 11:27
Bad service,
My claim was declined because on the inception of my policy I was asked if I was arrested for drink and driving, I answered no because I incorrectly arrested and never charged. No charges were laid against me because I was not driving any car. I was hijacked and my car was never found the car was burned beyond recognition and I thought it was mine, SMD confirmed that it was not my car. SAU played me tried by all means to decline my claim, this not the company you can insure your belongings with.
Helpful (0)
Replies (3)0
Replies (3)
SA Underwriting Agencies (Pty) Ltd's replyOfficial
25 Oct 2023, 14:37Good day Thabani C We confirm that the policy was declared void due to the misrepresentation of material information pertaining to the risk. The vehicle was also correctly identified as yours when the VIN numbers were checked. The Insurer relies on the information provided at inception as well as throughout the lifespan of the policy to manage and/or accept the risk. We refer to our policy wording, Section Q(below)Q. NON-DISCLOSURE, MIS-DESCRIPTION OR MISREPRESENTATIONPlease be advised that should any of the information supp**** to us be found to be incomplete, inaccurate or untruthful, we have the right to declare the policy null and void and/or decline your claim. It was determined that you did not disclose your previous arrest for DUI to the Insurer, and further misrepresented important information to the Insurer during the claim validation. We determined that had we been informed of the prior arrest then we would not have accepted the risk and therefore any claims on the policy would not be honoured.
We further confirm that you have disputed the outcome of the claim with the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance. They have investigated the matter and have ruled in our favour.
We refer to the below excerpt from the OSTI findings that was provided to you on the 20th Dec 2021:“Following the investigation that took place during the claims stage, the insurer was severely prejudiced due to the insured misrepresenting his previous arrest. The insurer submitted that the previous arrest fell outside it's acceptable risk parameters. Furthermore, had that been disclosed it would have declined cover from start. The contract between the insurer and the insured is arranged based on good faith. The insured has a responsibility to disclose all material facts that may be reasonably expected of him to enable the insurer to properly assess the risk.”
We therefore submit that the rejection of the claim is justified and correct in terms of the policy contract.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare To Deliver!
We further confirm that you have disputed the outcome of the claim with the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance. They have investigated the matter and have ruled in our favour.
We refer to the below excerpt from the OSTI findings that was provided to you on the 20th Dec 2021:“Following the investigation that took place during the claims stage, the insurer was severely prejudiced due to the insured misrepresenting his previous arrest. The insurer submitted that the previous arrest fell outside it's acceptable risk parameters. Furthermore, had that been disclosed it would have declined cover from start. The contract between the insurer and the insured is arranged based on good faith. The insured has a responsibility to disclose all material facts that may be reasonably expected of him to enable the insurer to properly assess the risk.”
We therefore submit that the rejection of the claim is justified and correct in terms of the policy contract.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare To Deliver!
SA Underwriting Agencies (Pty) Ltd's reply25 Oct 2023, 14:37
Official
Good day Thabani C We confirm that the policy was declared void due to the misrepresentation of material information pertaining to the risk. The vehicle was also correctly identified as yours when the VIN numbers were checked. The Insurer relies on the information provided at inception as well as throughout the lifespan of the policy to manage and/or accept the risk. We refer to our policy wording, Section Q(below)Q. NON-DISCLOSURE, MIS-DESCRIPTION OR MISREPRESENTATIONPlease be advised that should any of the information supp**** to us be found to be incomplete, inaccurate or untruthful, we have the right to declare the policy null and void and/or decline your claim. It was determined that you did not disclose your previous arrest for DUI to the Insurer, and further misrepresented important information to the Insurer during the claim validation. We determined that had we been informed of the prior arrest then we would not have accepted the risk and therefore any claims on the policy would not be honoured.
We further confirm that you have disputed the outcome of the claim with the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance. They have investigated the matter and have ruled in our favour.
We refer to the below excerpt from the OSTI findings that was provided to you on the 20th Dec 2021:“Following the investigation that took place during the claims stage, the insurer was severely prejudiced due to the insured misrepresenting his previous arrest. The insurer submitted that the previous arrest fell outside it's acceptable risk parameters. Furthermore, had that been disclosed it would have declined cover from start. The contract between the insurer and the insured is arranged based on good faith. The insured has a responsibility to disclose all material facts that may be reasonably expected of him to enable the insurer to properly assess the risk.”
We therefore submit that the rejection of the claim is justified and correct in terms of the policy contract.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare To Deliver!
We further confirm that you have disputed the outcome of the claim with the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance. They have investigated the matter and have ruled in our favour.
We refer to the below excerpt from the OSTI findings that was provided to you on the 20th Dec 2021:“Following the investigation that took place during the claims stage, the insurer was severely prejudiced due to the insured misrepresenting his previous arrest. The insurer submitted that the previous arrest fell outside it's acceptable risk parameters. Furthermore, had that been disclosed it would have declined cover from start. The contract between the insurer and the insured is arranged based on good faith. The insured has a responsibility to disclose all material facts that may be reasonably expected of him to enable the insurer to properly assess the risk.”
We therefore submit that the rejection of the claim is justified and correct in terms of the policy contract.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare To Deliver!
TC
Thabani C's updateReviewer Update
25 Oct 2023, 15:20What was misrepresented.
My arrest was incorrect because I was not driving any vehicle an the case was thrown out of caurt.
The investigation was incomplete.
SMD confirmed a Chevrolet Aveo according to the VIN number and they requested NATIS for that particular car not for Chevrolet cruze.
That was the crucial information that supposed to be found by your investigator.
SAU is unreliable, they can not be trusted
My arrest was incorrect because I was not driving any vehicle an the case was thrown out of caurt.
The investigation was incomplete.
SMD confirmed a Chevrolet Aveo according to the VIN number and they requested NATIS for that particular car not for Chevrolet cruze.
That was the crucial information that supposed to be found by your investigator.
SAU is unreliable, they can not be trusted
TC
Thabani C's update25 Oct 2023, 15:20
Reviewer Update
What was misrepresented.
My arrest was incorrect because I was not driving any vehicle an the case was thrown out of caurt.
The investigation was incomplete.
SMD confirmed a Chevrolet Aveo according to the VIN number and they requested NATIS for that particular car not for Chevrolet cruze.
That was the crucial information that supposed to be found by your investigator.
SAU is unreliable, they can not be trusted
My arrest was incorrect because I was not driving any vehicle an the case was thrown out of caurt.
The investigation was incomplete.
SMD confirmed a Chevrolet Aveo according to the VIN number and they requested NATIS for that particular car not for Chevrolet cruze.
That was the crucial information that supposed to be found by your investigator.
SAU is unreliable, they can not be trusted
SA Underwriting Agencies (Pty) Ltd's replyOfficial
10 Nov 2023, 10:31Good day Thabani C
Save to repeat our previous response, the question posed regard previous arrests was unambiguous.
Regardless of whether the case was withdrawn or not, the fact remains that you were previously arrested and misrepresented this fact to the Insurer.
In terms of the vehicle, our assessors have provided photographic evidence of the VIN number of the vehicle and we have confirmed that the VIN number matches the risk vehicle.
We confirm that the policy terms and conditions have been correctly app**** and this has been verified by the Ombudsman.
We therefore consider the matter closed.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare to Deliver!
Save to repeat our previous response, the question posed regard previous arrests was unambiguous.
Regardless of whether the case was withdrawn or not, the fact remains that you were previously arrested and misrepresented this fact to the Insurer.
In terms of the vehicle, our assessors have provided photographic evidence of the VIN number of the vehicle and we have confirmed that the VIN number matches the risk vehicle.
We confirm that the policy terms and conditions have been correctly app**** and this has been verified by the Ombudsman.
We therefore consider the matter closed.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare to Deliver!
SA Underwriting Agencies (Pty) Ltd's reply10 Nov 2023, 10:31
Official
Good day Thabani C
Save to repeat our previous response, the question posed regard previous arrests was unambiguous.
Regardless of whether the case was withdrawn or not, the fact remains that you were previously arrested and misrepresented this fact to the Insurer.
In terms of the vehicle, our assessors have provided photographic evidence of the VIN number of the vehicle and we have confirmed that the VIN number matches the risk vehicle.
We confirm that the policy terms and conditions have been correctly app**** and this has been verified by the Ombudsman.
We therefore consider the matter closed.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare to Deliver!
Save to repeat our previous response, the question posed regard previous arrests was unambiguous.
Regardless of whether the case was withdrawn or not, the fact remains that you were previously arrested and misrepresented this fact to the Insurer.
In terms of the vehicle, our assessors have provided photographic evidence of the VIN number of the vehicle and we have confirmed that the VIN number matches the risk vehicle.
We confirm that the policy terms and conditions have been correctly app**** and this has been verified by the Ombudsman.
We therefore consider the matter closed.
Kind Regards
The SAU Team
We Dare to Deliver!