UU
User1 User
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2017
14 Nov 2017, 12:11
******* from Santam
Hi There,
I was involved in a 3rd party accident on the 26th May, A driver from your client Chubb fire & security bumped into my car. The damage on my car according to the panel beater is R11 286, 00 according to Santam is R9 458,11 of which Chubb paid R5000 excess and now Santam is trying by all means to rip me off with an offer of 60% of which it was increased to 80% after sending a letter from the lawyers. I have been in touch with in-experienced employees from Santam (Puleng Mosime and Julia Mogase), of which they are failing to provide reasons why I cant get 100% on the claim but keeps saying I should have done something. This is very disappointing as I have been the one calling the all the time. My car is still damaged and the two in-experienced employees keeps avoiding me, i have requested that they should refer the matter to someone senior or above their level, but they are still failing to do so.
Below is the stupid final response from Julia Mogase, Santam Employee responding to my lawyer!
"Good Day Thank you for your e-mail date the 8th Instant. Kindly note that we have perused your email however we strongly believe that the offer of straight 80% is fair and reasonable. Your client had a duty to keep a proper look out and see what is happening within his immediate environs. Your client suffered damages to the right front side and our client suffered damages to the left rear side. This indicates that your client had a clear view of our insures’ vehicle Our offer therefor stand."
Helpful (0)
Replies (5)0
Replies (5)
Santam's replyOfficial
14 Nov 2017, 13:08Good day,
Thank you for your post. We do believe this matter has been addressed in our space before when you approached Twitter and Facebook.
Kindly note that in the majority of cases where two vehicles are moving simultaneously there will always be an apportionment of damages applicable. Only if third party is parked or stationary 100% liability can be applicable. Based on the merit investigations we cannot fault the legal departments's offer of 80% straight towards you. Kindly note the assessor assessed the damages based on the quotes provided and discussed and agreed with the repairer to have the vehicle repaired at a cost of R9458.11 -- Settlement was therefore calculated on this amount.
We suggest you consult you attorney as we unfortunately cannot be of any assistance.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Best regards,
Santam's reply14 Nov 2017, 13:08
Official
Good day,
Thank you for your post. We do believe this matter has been addressed in our space before when you approached Twitter and Facebook.
Kindly note that in the majority of cases where two vehicles are moving simultaneously there will always be an apportionment of damages applicable. Only if third party is parked or stationary 100% liability can be applicable. Based on the merit investigations we cannot fault the legal departments's offer of 80% straight towards you. Kindly note the assessor assessed the damages based on the quotes provided and discussed and agreed with the repairer to have the vehicle repaired at a cost of R9458.11 -- Settlement was therefore calculated on this amount.
We suggest you consult you attorney as we unfortunately cannot be of any assistance.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Best regards,
UU
User1 User's updateReviewer Update
14 Nov 2017, 13:32it would have been wise to understand how the accident happened before making a decision based on your assumptions. Your client was driving behind me, then decided to change the line before turning to the left of which the road didn’t allow him as it was one lane and there were road constructions. He was speeding to respond and didn’t even stop, I had to chase him!
It is disappointing to see how you rob people!
Your assessor never discussed anything with the repairer, so this is a lie. I had to call the repairer myself.
UU
User1 User's update14 Nov 2017, 13:32
Reviewer Update
it would have been wise to understand how the accident happened before making a decision based on your assumptions. Your client was driving behind me, then decided to change the line before turning to the left of which the road didn’t allow him as it was one lane and there were road constructions. He was speeding to respond and didn’t even stop, I had to chase him!
It is disappointing to see how you rob people!
Your assessor never discussed anything with the repairer, so this is a lie. I had to call the repairer myself.
UU
User1 User's updateReviewer Update
14 Nov 2017, 13:34I guess in this case I will have to deal with Chubb themselves. But it’s amzing how your insurance wanted to pay less than R500 for my damage of which the insurer paid R5000 access.
UU
User1 User's update14 Nov 2017, 13:34
Reviewer Update
I guess in this case I will have to deal with Chubb themselves. But it’s amzing how your insurance wanted to pay less than R500 for my damage of which the insurer paid R5000 access.
Santam's replyOfficial
14 Nov 2017, 14:05Good day sir,
As mentioned before, we cannot fault our offer.
If you are still not happy with the findings you are welcome to request your attorneys to advise you accordingly.
Thank you
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Best regards,
Santam's reply14 Nov 2017, 14:05
Official
Good day sir,
As mentioned before, we cannot fault our offer.
If you are still not happy with the findings you are welcome to request your attorneys to advise you accordingly.
Thank you
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Best regards,
UU
User1 User's updateReviewer Update
14 Nov 2017, 16:26So this is how you make money, eating from the poor ? Your inexperienced legal team can’t even answer questions from the advocate.
UU
User1 User's update14 Nov 2017, 16:26
Reviewer Update
So this is how you make money, eating from the poor ? Your inexperienced legal team can’t even answer questions from the advocate.