Claim refused based on assumptions

My claim was damaged based on assumptions that there was pre-existing damage and yet when I have asked them to proof it non of them could proof. It was only that we think

I had a sticker on my car and after removing it months ago I scratched my car next to where the sticker was. My claim was rejected as if was existing.

When I said it was not they all ganged against me - SAVM is a group of ****** which don’t even have complaints department. I mean you cannot decline the claim on the assumptions that maybe behind the sticker there was damage.

I wonder if logic applies at their management seeing they all lack decisive ness