Miway Insurance - i learned a lesson today!

[johannrissik]

@martelpypie: In future just rename the storage areas of your car. The cubbyhole becomes "the inside" the inside becomes the cubbyhole and the boot remains the boot. Label them accordingly.

[flymango]

 

 

I will be changing to another insurance on Monday.

 

 

 

Whatever you do, also make sure you have cover from another insurer BEFORE you cancel your existing policy, i.e. make sure you have continuous cover!! Apart from the actual risk of not having cover, sometimes insurers can get difficult if you haven't had continuous cover. Same with medical aid.

[Bateleur1]

I would take the to the insurance ombudsman. Check exactly what your policy says. Especially the schedule compared to your contract. They are not allowed to give fine print in the contract which is not stipulated in the schedule. Check what it says there and if you still have a case take them to the insurance ombudsman. You would be surprised how these bugger will try and screw you.

[leon_pro]

I think there more to story here, they wont reject your whole claim for the one item being not concealed, what else did you claim for?

[dracs]

I would take the to the insurance ombudsman. Check exactly what your policy says. Especially the schedule compared to your contract. They are not allowed to give fine print in the contract which is not stipulated in the schedule. Check what it says there and if you still have a case take them to the insurance ombudsman. You would be surprised how these bugger will try and screw you.

+1 Agree - take it up with the short term insurance ombud. Unlikely that they can reject the entire claim because one item was not in the cubby hole. The ombud turns plenty of decisions like this around... (you will have had to have exhausted Mi Ways internal dispute resolution process first though so if you haven't already, log this formally with their complaint / DR deparment....

Edited December 9, 2011 by dracs

[Bateleur1]

Normally just mentioning the ombud pulls them in line again.

[martelpypie]

All what they said to me is there is a clause that states everything must be either in the cubbyhole or in the boot.I even spoke to a manager and was told the same. They reject the claim and its final. There were running shoes, wallet etc. I was told to read the fine print.

I suppose one should have burglar bars fitted to your car windows, if you want anything paid out that was stolen out of the car with Miway.

 

I accept this as their policy now, but felt other people must be made aware of this, as everybody at times (especially us cyclist) have items in their cars, and with Miway, you will not get it yourway.

Edited December 9, 2011 by martelpypie

[dracs]

yes and nothing in that clause states that the entire claim is invalidated if one item is not locked away... so if your gps was under the seat but your shoes wallet etc were in the boot or cubby you hsve grounds to dispute (log it formally with their complaints dept, get a reference etc (don't just speek to a manager) and tell them if they don't resolve you will take it up with the ombud...

 

If on the other hand all your goodies were lying around in yr car footwell door pocket etc, then you poked...

Edited December 9, 2011 by dracs

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Normally just mentioning the ombud pulls them in line again.

 

Not really, insurance companies are pretty adept at keeping to the letter of their terms and conditions. They are well aware of how far they can push the envelope and for a smallish claim of 5k its very unlikely they will step out of line.

 

Also remember if it go's to the ombudsman, it go's into limbo for as long as it takes to get an answer, in other words nothing happens until the ombudsman rules, in this instance its moot as its a small claim and the OP is not under financial strain, but in some claims the insured can find themselves seriously out of pocket for months on end and there is no guarantee the ombudsman will support your claim.

 

In all cases its always best to reason with the insurer as long and as far as possible, trying to wield the big stick is not always conducive to an amicable settlement.

[Bateleur1]

Yes and no. Negotiate and as you say don't always wield the big stick, but in Martelpypies case they made up their mind.

 

I had a claim two years ago. My lapa burnt down and the contents of what was under the lapa was about a 35 k claim. My insurance also turned around and said they will only pay 6500 as items in the 'open' only gets limited cover. When I asked where they got that from they told me it is in my contract. Problem is they never ever sent me a contract. The only documentation that I had from them was the schedule. I just said to them that either they prove how they made me aware of that clause (as the schedule states nothing of it) or we meet in the office of the ombudsman. Two days later the full claim was paid into my account.

 

Shortly after this I was listening to a radio show (702 or SAFM) and they had an interview with the short term insurance ombudsman. You would not believe the stories you would hear as people phoned in. After that show I am not convinced that "insurance companies are pretty adept at keeping to the letter of their terms and conditions".

 

Bottom line is. Know what is said in your insurance policy. Know what your rights are and when the insurance companies want to take you for a ride, be ready to sort them out. What did they say in the old days ... Knowledge is power.

[Danger Dassie]

Just remember, when getting a number of quotes. A few of the major insurers belong to the same holding company.

 

For example http://www.telesure.co.za/brands.html

[patches]

I had a acident in my car. R20 000 damage. 4 days later a dude does a u turn in front of me, R33 000 damage. AF didnt bat a eye lid. Repaired no quibbles, had a hire car for almost 2 months.

 

Have claimed 3 wheelsets from them. All i needed to claim was a quote for replacement value.

 

Grumpy not lekker that you didnt have a good experience with them.

 

I pay all of R450pm on my 2008 BMW 323i

 

...you must be a little old lady

[Big H*]

All what they said to me is there is a clause that states everything must be either in the cubbyhole or in the boot.I even spoke to a manager and was told the same. They reject the claim and its final. There were running shoes, wallet etc. I was told to read the fine print.

I suppose one should have burglar bars fitted to your car windows, if you want anything paid out that was stolen out of the car with Miway.

 

I accept this as their policy now, but felt other people must be made aware of this, as everybody at times (especially us cyclist) have items in their cars, and with Miway, you will not get it yourway.

 

Contact the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance. I did it twice and in both cases my claim rejection was overturned.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

 

Bottom line is. Know what is said in your insurance policy. Know what your rights are and when the insurance companies want to take you for a ride, be ready to sort them out. What did they say in the old days ... Knowledge is power.

 

Indeed, and a main reason I believe, for a layman like me, who has no interest in reading the fine print a broker is essential.

 

I also believe in sticking to companies who specialize in short term insurance as their main line of business, and that's generally the blue chip insurers like Zurich, Santam, M&F etc, Financial institutions and brokers who run insurance operations as a side line simply dont have the same level of commitment.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Anyway, lets have a bit of fun......I happen to know of a number of cases that have seen the insurance ombudsman's attention so I picked two. Have a read and tell me (or all of us) how you think the ombudsman rules and why. I will give you the ombudsman's ruling in a day or so......have a shot its just a bit of fun.

 

Case 1

 

A car enthusiast buys an old car with a view to restoring it and using it daily. After the restoration he do's all the necessary, like taking it through the road worthy etc and its a fully legal and licensed vehicle on the road, he also insures the car comprehensively.

 

Some time later the insured experiences a brake problem, he tries to fix it himself but cant, and takes it to a professional workshop for repairs. The job is done and the brakes work fine for two weeks, then, one morning they fail completely and the insured is involved in a major accident and both cars are written off.

 

The insurance company refuses the claim on the basis of their terms and conditions which say "all vehicles must be maintained in a safe and reliable mechanical condition and must be roadworthy at all times" - the insured takes the claim to the ombudsman, how do's he rule.?

 

Case 2.

 

A client moves into a house and is resident there for about 8 months. He insures his house as usual with the bank who holds the bond.

 

One day the geyser bursts, there is extensive damage to the roof structure and the ceiling. The geyser was also over the lounge and the leather lounge suite is destroyed by water as well as carpets, curtains etc.

 

The insurer repudiates the claim on the basis that (a)there was no catch tray beneath the geyser as required by law and which would have prevented major damage and (2)the geyser was found to be in poor condition with extensive rust, there was also extensive rusting found on the inlet and outlet pipes as well as other pipes in the roof which meant, that the insured had not adhered to their terms and conditions which state "the geyser must have a catch tray,...... the geyser and all pipes must be regularly inspected and maintained in good condition" that they were not liable for the claim.

 

The insured takes the claim to the ombudsman on the basis that the house was inspected by the banks appointed inspector prior to the bond been granted, and he made no mention of the poor condition of the pipes or geyser or the fact there was no catch tray, hence, the insured claims he was unaware of the issue and requested the ruling be overturned.

 

How did the ombudsman rule.?

 

Okay lets hear.!

Edited December 11, 2011 by GrumpyOldGuy

[steve61]

My Outsurance policy says that will only cover loose items if they are enclosed in a concealed storage area, such as a boot or cubby hole and there are visible signs of forced entry. The agent said that the concealment requirement does not apply to bicycles that are locked in a car or bike rack. Just to be sure, I got them to specifically state that in my cover document.

bull***t!! They told me to piss off when my bike was stolen off bike rack at Kyalami in 2007. It was locked with a cable lock but they said it was left unattended and that was why they rejected the claim.