Broker to pay client R300k
POLICY DISPUTE: INSURER REJECTS CLAIM OF STOLEN TOYOTA LAND CRUISER
Ombud says the insured was not told she needed to install a tracking device in her vehicle.
ABrits-based insurance brokerage has been ordered to pay a medical doctor more than R300 000 after her short-term insurer rejected her claim following the theft of her Toyota Land Cruiser. Her claim was rejected because a satellite early warning device was not installed in the vehicle as required by the policy.
The Ombud for Financial Services Providers (Fais) Advocate John Simpson ordered Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers to pay Dr Luzanne de Beer R301 466, plus interest, related to her insurance claim.
De Beer purchased the Toyota Land Cruiser 76 4.2D on 5 February, 2016 and added the vehicle to her insurance policy through her broker, Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers. The vehicle was stolen from her place of employment on 20 July, 2018 and she submitted a claim of R312 400 to her insurer Quicksure, which is underwritten by Old Mutual Insure. Quicksure rejected the claim on 17 August, 2018.
De Beer lodged a complaint against Quicksure with the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (Osti) but the complaint was dismissed.
She then filed a complaint on 29 October, 2018 with the Fais office against Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers, claiming that Jacques Jacobs, a representative of the insurance broker, did not properly inform her of the requirements of the policy, including the need for this device to be installed.
De Beer further claimed there was no correspondence from her insurance brokers enquiring whether she had a satellite early warning device installed and they also never requested the installation certificate from her.
Broker responds
Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers said De Beer signed the policy documents after it was explained to her that a satellite early warning device had to be fitted and did not give the contract and accompanying disclosure the attention they deserved.
It said the policy stipulates the requirement regarding the satellite device, which is the grounds on which the claim was rejected. It further claimed the satellite device was explained to De Beer, which was corroborated by the correspondence of Suzaan Calitz, one of its employees.
Advocate Simpson said the insurance brokerage from the onset denied liability and claimed De Beer was aware of the satellite early warning device.
He said a recommendation was sent to the brokerage on 24 August 2023 advising them to settle the claim but they responded on 7 September 2023 that they intended to appeal the decision and were seeking legal advice on the matter.
Advocate Simpson said subsequent attempts to contact the brokerage or its compliance officer telephonically and by e-mail were unsuccessful.
Tracking device ‘not a usual requirement’
Assessing the evidence, Simpson said based on the Office of the Fais Ombud’s experience with cases it adjudicates, an early warning satellite tracking device is not a normal or usual requirement in a policy for theft cover on all vehicles.
It is generally only applicable to certain vehicles depending on value and exceptional risk factors, he said.
Simpson said the insurance brokerage claimed it discussed the requirement with De Beer but it had not produced any evidence in this regard.
He said there is no record of advice reflecting any discussion with De Beer regarding the satellite tracking device and also no evidence of them following up with her to confirm whether a device was installed.
Simpson said the only evidence they submitted was a general letter sent to all clients and the policy schedule that was sent to De Beer at the inception of the policy.