Rejection by Santam of claims for damage

This is a sequel to my two previous reviews related to my experience following the collapse of my boundary wall. Subsequent to said reviews the Ombudsman sent HelloPeter an e-mail asking me to provide their reference in this matter so that they could "..explain the outcome..". which I did - to date there has only been a deadly silence from both him and Santam. I now have information that a family member in Kimberley whose wall also collapsed, was paid out R12000-00 (full cost of the damage) within a week of submitting a claim - he is also insured with Santam. I now have it on good authority that Santam's arrangement with brokers/agents is that they are free to pay any claim, irrespective of the contractual provisions or the "..fine print..." up to a pre-arranged limit (Threshold) - I am informed this is either R15000-00 or R20 000-00 per claim - without using on an assessor or referring the claim to Santam. If this information is correct, and recent experience of my family member suggests that it is, then it appears that my claim was rejected because the cost 0f the damage was in excess of this limit or threshold. This experience of the family member also seems to confirm (rebuttable) information that assessors are "..instructed..." to find a reason for or cause of the damage, that will enable Santam to rely on legal technicalities in their policy documents to reject the claim if the amount of the claim exceeds the said limit or threshold. If this is indeed true, then the public should be made aware of this so that they can act accordingly when claiming for damage.