1 reviews | Active since Jun 2017
unfair treatment with regards to third party claim on vechicle
<p> </p> <p>On 7th March 2017 I sent my car for repairs and when the mechanic was driving to bring back my car, a bakkie from a courier company drove into my car causing quite a lot of damage.Santam's reason for not paying for full damages stated below........</p> <p>We did a third party claim seeing that the driver of our car was not a fault. The accessor stated that we had no liability to the accident, the driver atmitted he was quilty infront of a police officer and witnesses.</p> <p>The bakkie was unroadworthy due to a broken tail light and the fact that he did not use his indicators.</p> <p>Santam only wants to pay out 80% of the damages and says we are liable for 20% of the accident. please see the reason below.</p> <p>The learned judged stated the following:</p> <p>“Keeping a proper lookout means more than looking straight ahead – it includes awareness of what is happening in one’s immediate vicinity. A motorist should have a view of the whole road from side to side and, in case of a road passing through a built-up area, of the pavements on the side of the roads as well”</p> <p>In her affidavate, the driver of our vechicle stated that she saw that the bakkie's tail light was broken and that the driver of the bakkie did not use his indicators. So she did not just look straight ahead while she was driving. She was aware while she was driving in a double lane. Due to the bakkie not using his indicators, the accident was caused. You can not drive on the leftside of a double lane, see that you have to turn right and then just turn, not looking for the other vechicles on the road. So the driver of the bakkie , just looked were he wanted to go and not for vechicles close to him.</p> <p>We have been clients ourselves with Santam for more that 15 years and received excellent service untill we became a third party. We feel this is unfair treatment and would like it rectified.</p> <p> </p>
Good day Werner,
Thank you for your post above. We are really sorry to hear about your misfortune and the service you have experienced on this third party claim of yours.
We will investigate the matter and revert back to you once we have concluded our investigation.
Thank you kindly.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Good day Werner,
Thank you for your post above. We are really sorry to hear about your misfortune and the service you have experienced on this third party claim of yours.
We will investigate the matter and revert back to you once we have concluded our investigation.
Thank you kindly.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
The above feedback was given on the 2nd of June 2017. Does it take 3 weeks to investigate?
In the meantime the Quate that was submitted for the vehicle repiars have expired. Can I resubmit the claim or are there a resolution. Please advise me in this regard.
The above feedback was given on the 2nd of June 2017. Does it take 3 weeks to investigate?
In the meantime the Quate that was submitted for the vehicle repiars have expired. Can I resubmit the claim or are there a resolution. Please advise me in this regard.
I have been patient for a very long time. If this complaint is not resolved within the next 24 Hours, I will be forced to submit this as a formal complaint at the Ombudsman.
I have been patient for a very long time. If this complaint is not resolved within the next 24 Hours, I will be forced to submit this as a formal complaint at the Ombudsman.
Good day Werner,
With regard to your further posts above.
Unfortunately we uphold our initial offer of 80% of the damages assessed which was set out in the settlement offer to you dated 25/04/2017. The damage to your vehicle was assessed to be an amount of R12973.20 --- we offered you 80% of this damage and offered you an amount of R10378.56.
The reason why we are only willing to offer you 80% of your damages and not 100% is based on legal principles of delict an case law. Al third party claims are subject to this approach and process because no contractual obligations are taken into consideration because of the third party process. Had you claimed from your own insurer they would have authorised the repairs after assessment on the repair figure agreed on.
The road user have to be vigilant and alert at all times to be in a position to avoid an accident should the danger present itself -- the only times an 100% offer would be considered would be where your vehicle is parked or stationary and our insured bumped into you. Whilst driving apportionment of damages will always be considered and be applicable and is this case we have established that our insured was the more liable party but not to the extent of being 100% liable.
Our decision therefore stands and the offer remains as set out above.
Thank you kindly.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Good day Werner,
With regard to your further posts above.
Unfortunately we uphold our initial offer of 80% of the damages assessed which was set out in the settlement offer to you dated 25/04/2017. The damage to your vehicle was assessed to be an amount of R12973.20 --- we offered you 80% of this damage and offered you an amount of R10378.56.
The reason why we are only willing to offer you 80% of your damages and not 100% is based on legal principles of delict an case law. Al third party claims are subject to this approach and process because no contractual obligations are taken into consideration because of the third party process. Had you claimed from your own insurer they would have authorised the repairs after assessment on the repair figure agreed on.
The road user have to be vigilant and alert at all times to be in a position to avoid an accident should the danger present itself -- the only times an 100% offer would be considered would be where your vehicle is parked or stationary and our insured bumped into you. Whilst driving apportionment of damages will always be considered and be applicable and is this case we have established that our insured was the more liable party but not to the extent of being 100% liable.
Our decision therefore stands and the offer remains as set out above.
Thank you kindly.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager