Fiona Hughes is Santam's biggest problem

Thanks for your inadequate service Stephen Olivier from Santam. You have redudiated a claim based on an alleged "sudden emergency" clause without providing a stitch of evidence. It is a 3rd party claim of for 3 vehicles damaged by a reckless driver. Stephen Olivier alleges he interviewed the driver and has proved the claim of sudden emergency within hours of obtaining the complaint. To date there's not been any case of attempted hi jacking opened by the client not was there any mention of this prior to the claim being repudiated. Why is Stephen Oliver and Fiona Hughes been hiding behind the "sudden emergency" clause? Do they get financially compensated for denying claims that were 100% caused by their insured clients? Is Santam just another ****?

I have yet to receive any sort of communication about this except from anyone, I have asked for proof to which none has been provided, I have also asked for documentation on what Santam actually covers as it seems to me that you only cover standard messages from client care and not actually settling valid claims.

A request was sent for documentation, this does not mean it will actually be delivered, all the Santam Insurance staff we have dealt with seems grossly incomptent hiding behind clauses which cover exactly the thing people are insured against without even considering proof to support claims. Fiona Hughes and Stephen Olivier are the epitomy of ***********. We have also asked for the internal ombudsman's contact details which you have yet to provide