## Santam Claim *** – Insurance Is Tested When You Need It, Not When They Collect Your Premium

I have been fighting Santam over **Claim Number *** since 27 November 2025**, and after months of correspondence, investigations, unanswered questions and repeated attempts to obtain assistance, I have now been informed that my matter has been “finalised and closed”. What makes this particularly concerning is that my substantive questions and objections have not been properly answered. Instead of addressing the issues I have raised, Santam appears to have simply decided that the matter is over.

The fundamental issue is straightforward. Santam has re**** on alleged gradual deterioration of the underground gum poles as a basis for refusing my claim. However, the deterioration was concealed below ground level and was not something that an ordinary homeowner could reasonably have been expected to see, identify, or prevent without specialist knowledge or investigation. I have repeatedly asked Santam a very simple question: **What specific maintenance could a reasonable homeowner have undertaken to detect or prevent deterioration that was concealed underground?** I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

There is an even more significant contradiction in Santam's position. **If Santam concluded from the outset that my loss was clearly excluded because of gradual deterioration, why was a further specialist investigation necessary? And if that specialist investigation was necessary to establish the true cause of the collapse, why was my claim rejected before that investigation was fully concluded, properly explained, and transparently considered?** These are not unreasonable questions. They go directly to the basis upon which my claim was rejected.

I have also raised the issue that Santam bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the exclusion it relies upon actually applies to the circumstances of my loss. I have not asked Santam to pay a claim that is clearly excluded. I have asked them to demonstrate, with proper evidence, why the exclusion applies and what I, as an ordinary homeowner, could reasonably have done to prevent a concealed defect that was not visible or reasonably detectable.

What has been particularly disappointing is the way my attempts to obtain assistance have been handled. I have made numerous attempts to engage with Santam and obtain meaningful answers. I was directed to contact **Roxy Classen** for assistance with my lapa claim, yet my experience was that my attempts to obtain assistance from her were effectively ignored. After all of this, I am now simply informed that the matter has been finalised and closed. **A claim does not become properly resolved simply because the insurer decides to close its file. The unanswered questions do not disappear because Santam has stopped engaging with them.**

This experience has fundamentally changed the way I view insurance. Insurance is ultimately tested **when something goes wrong—not when the premium is collected**. It is easy for an insurer to market itself, promise protection and collect premiums. The real measure of an insurer is what happens when a genuine customer experiences a loss and needs the protection for which they have been paying.

My experience has left me asking whether Santam's considerable investment in marketing is matched by the same commitment to assisting policyholders when they actually need to claim. **The marketing promises are easy to find. Getting meaningful assistance when you actually need the insurance appears to be another matter.**

I am therefore making my experience public because I believe consumers deserve to know what can happen when a claim is disputed. I am not suggesting that every Santam customer will necessarily have the same experience, but I believe my experience with **Claim ***** deserves scrutiny. Consumers should look beyond advertising and promotional campaigns and ask a much more important question before choosing an insurer: **How does this company treat its customers when they actually need to claim?**

I have already approached the relevant external dispute-resolution channels and have formally placed my concerns on record. Given the length of time that I have been fighting this matter and the fact that I believe important questions remain unanswered, I am also considering taking the matter further by approaching **media houses and journalists who may be interested in investigating the circumstances surrounding this claim and the broader consumer implications**. I am equally considering approaching **political parties and public representatives who may be willing to assist in bringing greater public attention to the treatment of consumers by large financial and insurance institutions**, particularly as South Africa moves towards an approaching election season where consumer protection and accountability are legitimate matters of public interest.

This is not about seeking special treatment. **I am asking for accountability, transparency and a proper explanation for why a claim for which premiums were paid has been rejected, particularly where the evidence and reasoning re**** upon by Santam raise questions that have still not been adequately answered.**

Santam may consider **Claim ***** closed. I do not.

**Closing a file does not close the questions. Ignoring correspondence does not answer it. And refusing to pay a claim does not, by itself, prove that the exclusion re**** upon actually applies.**

I have been fighting this matter since **27 November 2025**. I am now prepared to take every lawful avenue available to me to have the matter properly scrutinised.

**Santam: Insurance is not tested when you sell the policy. It is tested when your customer needs you to honour it.**

And based on my experience, **I would urge consumers to think very carefully before choosing an insurer solely because its marketing makes it look impressive. Ask what happens when you actually need to claim. That is when the real test begins.**