Seeking loopholes to avoid Payment

<p>A truck drove into our building at a petrol station site and as a result thereof we were closed for two weeks. I am insured for a period of six months for any loss of profits due to business interruption.</p> <p> </p> <p>The wording of the policy reads as follows:</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>“ ITEM 1 GROSS PROFIT (difference basis)</p> <p>The insurance under this item is limited to loss of gross profit due to</p> <p>(a) reduction in turnover and</p> <p>(b) increase in cost of working</p> <p>and the amount payable as indemnity hereunder shall be</p> <p>(a) in respect of reduction in turnover the sum produced by applying the rate of gross profit to the amount by which the turnover during the indemnity period shall, in consequence of the Damage, fall short of the standard turnover</p> <p>(b) in respect of increase in cost of working the additional expenditure necessarily and reasonably incurred for the sole purpose of avoiding or diminishing the reduction in turnover which, but for that expenditure, would have taken place during the indemnity period in consequence of the Damage, but not exceeding the sum produced by applying the rate of gross profit to the amount of the reduction thereby avoided</p> <p>less any sum saved during the indemnity period in respect of such of the charges and expenses of the business payable out of gross profit as may cease or be reduced in consequence of the Damage, provided that the amount payable shall be proportionately reduced if the sum insured in respect of gross profit is less than the sum produced by applying the rate of gross profit to the annual turnover where the maximum indemnity period is 12 months or less, or the appropriate multiple of the annual turnover where the maximum indemnity period exceeds 12 months.”</p> <p> </p> <p>Although I was only insured for a period of six months, Santam (based on the wording of the policy above) argues that I should have been insured for a full years gross profit. Yet the wording of the policy states that where the Insured is covered for a period of more than a year, the appropriate MULTIPLE of the annual turnover should be used. </p> <p> </p> <p>In my opinion it goes without saying that the intended meaning of the policy was that a MULTIPLE of the annual turnover should be used where the period of cover is for less than a year. </p> <p> </p> <p>This is a blatant and unfair attempt to escape their obligations towards me. There is no point in taking them to Court as they will litigate you into bankruptcy. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>