Disputed Storm Damage Claim

I am insured with Santam under Policy No. ***.

In December 2025, during severe winds and heavy rainfall, my boundary wall was damaged.

Prior to Santam’s inspection, a boundary wall contractor informally suggested that we may also consider uprooting a nearby tree as a precaution, as it appeared to have been affected by the same severe weather event. This recommendation was separate from the boundary wall damage and was raised purely as a safety consideration.

When the Santam inspector attended, I openly mentioned this recommendation in good faith and in the interest of transparency.

However, it appears that the focus then shifted from storm-related damage to alleged root penetration instead of natural disturbance and the claim position changed suddenly.

I respectfully dispute the current conclusion.

The boundary wall damage occurred during a severe weather event and was sudden. Furthermore, neighbouring properties around my area also have visible boundary wall damage, including homes with no trees near their walls. This indicates that the damage was area-wide and attributable to the storm conditions rather than isolated root activity.

The suggestion to consider uprooting the tree was precautionary and unrelated to the structural failure of the wall.

I therefore request:

- A detailed written explanation for the rejection; - The full assessor’s report; - The specific policy clause re**** upon; and - Fair reconsideration of the claim based on storm damage provisions.

Please note that this escalation is being made to afford Santam an opportunity to rectify they clear intention to evade accountability. I can be contacted directly on *** for any engagement regarding this matter.

If this matter cannot be resolved internally, I will escalate it to the National Financial Ombud Scheme for independent review.

I trust Santam will address this fairly and urgently.

Regards, Adv. Kutta