Santam's refusal to honour a claim

On 23/8/2021 at 04:30 in the morning 40 meters of the boundary wall to my property collapsed. The collapse was preceded by a lady leasing a room from us phoning me awake to tell me that there were people walking around our property, but no one actually saw the said trespassers. The presumption was that there had been wall jumpers trying to gain access to the perperty. I reported the collapse of the wall to my short term insurer to claim for the resulting damage so as to be able to rebuild the wall to assure privacy and security. After a three days an accessor cam eto our property to access the damage; he was accompanied by a person who was apparently a builder brought along to advise him. He took many cell phone photos while clambering over the rubble but did not move a single fallen brick. He simply said that tree roots fromn the neighbours yard had damaged the foundations, causing cracks in the wall which resulted in the wall collapsing. The builder using a steel tube showed the accessor that the foundations were actually intact. The accessor then stated that the wall had not been bult according to regulations i.e. the supporting pillars were not "..tied into the wall.." - again the builder showed him that the pillars had in fact been properly "..tied in..". Ostensibly based on the accessors report, the Portfolio manager at Santam rejected the claim. I referred the matter to Santam's so called internal arbitrator, who after 5 days support the rejection of the claim because of a provision that the damage was the result of "..fair wear and tare.." quoting from. the encyclopeaedia for short term insurance. It is patently clear that Santam, contrary to their media adverti*****t that they always find a reason to honour a claim, in fact sought to find a reason not to honour the claim. It is also patently clear that Santam, who has always been quite ready to accept the monthly premiums for insuring against risk / damage, re**** on a legal technicality in the "..fine print.." not to entertain the claim. Santam and the so called internal arbitrator simply ignored my invitation to send another accessor to inspect the foundations that are quite clearly undamaged now that the rubble has been cleared and the foundations clearly visible, as well as the clearly visible fact that the wall had collapsed leaving the first and in places the second layer of bricks on top of the foundations intact. They simply also refused to entertain the suggestion that a review of the photographs taken of the section of the wall that had not collapsed and that clearly show that the wall have collapsed at two payers of bricks above the crack to which the accessor referred in his report - this demonstrates unequivocally that even if the cracks were in fact indicative of "..fair wear and tare..", this did not cause the collapse. It is quite unequivocal that Santam sought by all means to find a technicality that would give them a reason not to honour the claim. It is my sincere belief that Santam is committing an unfair business practice, and that they seek reasons not to honour any claims other than for minor and small damage where small amounts of money is involved, but that they will seek to find reasons not to honour substantial claims, in spite of their readiness to acceot they monthly premiums for assurance against risk = This should be brought to the attention of the general public who rely on insurers such as Santam. to protect them against risk. Prof. D de Villiers [Retired]