Claim rejection and either no response or slow response to communications.

With regards to a claim for lightning damage dating back to November last year, I am still not having any joy. Your company has employed an assessor who has found that the equipment failed due to normal wear and tear. My background is in computers, whereby I owned a large company, which supp**** and supported a full spectrum of services to large local and international corporations. In all the years we maintained PCs and notebooks, did we ever come across equipment failing due to this reason. Equipment still in good order after many years get replaced due to new technology making them obsolete, but never due to normal wear, besides what is the definition of normal wear in a notebook context? The keyboard is in perfect order, the screen is as sharp and bright as ever, the hard drive or SSD is easily replaced, all these items are in perfect working order, the motherboard and IO system, which are not moving parts and therefore should not wear, is “worn”? Your assessor insults your clients’ intelligence. The average secretary or clerical employee spends ten times more time on their computers than I do, I spend most of my days out of the house, leaving me with very few hours to work on my computer, as my time is also shared on my iPad and mobile. We have a report which was written by a reputable firm, which spent time in determining the cause, (equipment was damaged due to electrical spike, as a result of lightning) whilst the assessor appointed by SBIB looked at the machine, and made his findings in minutes. Based on what I saw, I dispute his findings as well as his credentials, how can you reach such a conclusion in the space of minutes and without having any proper testing equipment, look at a motherboard and declare that it is worn? He had no testing equipment whatsoever. The assessor employed does not have the credentials to enable him to reach such a conclusion, he gave me his business card, which states that he is a crime scene cleaner. Really! After making your company aware that subsequent to the claim, other equipment (the printer) connected to the notebook was also found to be damaged, it had no effect on the decision, I find this perplexing, it is clear that the new discovery does not suit the preconception and is therefore rejected out of hand. Your last communication on the matter being that if I am not satisfied with the findings, I should take it up with the ombudsman. This is not acceptable, this is a delaying tactic meant to obfuscate your clients and giving additional work to the ombudsman, hoping that I will lose patience and drop this course of action. I am prepared to take the equipment for further evaluation at another reputable retailer, but if your firm is to adopt an attitude which is totally not in line with what I consider to be professional conduct, I will be left with no other option but to report this matter on whichever platform I elect. Should this course of action not be successful, I will be cancelling the policy and demanding a refund as well as interest for the portion of the policy fees reflecting the notebook, as well as all other equipment deemed to be too old for cover. You cannot legally charge for insuring an item, which is not eligible for claiming against, as this is both dishonest and immoral.