Reading Santam its own fine print
Insurer called out on claim stipulations
WHEN it comes to contracts, the beauty of knowing exactly what is in the fine print is that you also know what is not.
It is this attention to detail that helped to secure burglary victims Jan and Regina Goossens a R100 000 insurance payout from Santam.
The KwaZulu-Natal pensioners lost watches, jewellery, cameras, bedding and perfume in a robbery at their Dundee home in January — but struggled to get paid out.
The couple were told by their broker that they would not be paid if the R85 000 of jewellery stolen had not been in a locked safe; they needed to get quotes on all the stolen items to finalise the claim; and any money due would be paid into a Santam Visa claims card (with which they had been issued) and not into their bank account.
Neither of the requirements, claimed the Goossens, were conditions of their policy. As for the unrequested card, they were not interested in using it.
“Can Santam force me to accept payment into such a card?” asked Jan Goossens.
No, it cannot, and once I contacted Santam, it agreed to deposit the money directly into the couple’s account.
As for the safe requirement, the Goossens were spot on. The requirement was not in their policy. And quotes are only needed on items where the value is in dispute or for unspecified items such as jewellery.
Said Santam spokesman Donald Kau: “I believe proper communication of the policy conditions with the policyholders could have led to the quicker and proper settlement of the claim. We are addressing this and offer our sincerest apology for the inconvenience experienced during our handling of their claim.”
“Proper” communication? Surely the Goossens just needed “correct” communication based on their policy?
“While we do our best to make sure that our staff and intermediaries are kept up to date regarding any changes or updates to policy, in this instance the communication of the policy conditions and settlement options to the policyholder led to the incorrect settlement decision,” said Kau.
He added that the poor communication was being addressed internally, as well as with the broker involved. And the Santam card? “This, too, could have been better communicated with the policyholder,” said Kau.
“The claims card is a cashback refund mechanism that allows Santam to load cash claim payments on a payment card instead of sending EFTs, as we’ve done in the past.
“While the policyholder retains the choice to receive the card, our intention has always been that we are better able to reward the policyholder when they can purchase replacement goods from stores and suppliers where we have negotiated special price arrangements.”
Interestingly enough, the introductory letter sent to the Goossens with the card makes no mention of the card facility (for non-motor claim payouts only) being optional. It is also silent on the penalty for unused portions of the claim payout.
A closer look at the card’s terms and conditions reveals that any payout balance remains on the card until spent or until Santam supplements it with a new claim payout. However, balances not spent two years after being loaded are subjected to a R10 monthly dormancy fee to “defray costs”.
Considering that cash-backs from preferred suppliers also go back into the card, consumers should routinely monitor their balance and ensure they use it in the allocated time.
It is little wonder the Goossens did not want one.
Tune into Power FM’s ‘Power Breakfast’ at 8.50am tomorrow to hear more from Megan