Do you know what you are covered for / Cyclesure?

[Rata Del Spruit]

Were they....not what I saw from carpet's opening post...the schedule was amended and comms were sent out via an email. They still took their premium...but they bother asking carpet is she is ok with the new T&C? Did she sign for the new T&C's agreeing with them?

 

According to their policy they can update the terms by sending a notification in writing to the last known address. Does email count as mail sufficient? Either way, this is an area I'd like to see them fix. If you update a policy then include a summary that shows the old wording and the new wording side by side so that the client can clearly see what has changed.

[rouxtjie]

According to their policy they can update the terms by sending a notification in writing to the last known address. Does email count as mail sufficient? Either way, this is an area I'd like to see them fix. If you update a policy then include a summary that shows the old wording and the new wording side by side so that the client can clearly see what has changed.

Yip this is were the ball got dropped imo...was everything legal, sure? was everything fair..mmmmmm dunno

[Joe Low]

Mets is quoting from the policy document that Carpet put on her original post - page 12 Specific Exceptions; no.5.

[Mets]

Were they....not what I saw from carpet's opening post...the schedule was amended and comms were sent out via an email. They still took their premium...but they bother asking carpet is she is ok with the new T&C? Did she sign for the new T&C's agreeing with them?

I was only going on the wording that was attached by Carpet on the first post (not sure if that changed since the inception) - Insurance companies usually amend their policies by adding clauses and memo's to a client's schedule - the wording hardly ever changes. But like I said - the wording is weak for a cycling specific product, the benefits are very few for the client. It is obvious that the product was developed to fill a gap in the market for the insurer and not to serve the cycling community.

[rouxtjie]

I was only going on the wording that was attached by Carpet on the first post (not sure if that changed since the inception) - Insurance companies usually amend their policies by adding clauses and memo's to a client's schedule - the wording hardly ever changes. But like I said - the wording is weak for a cycling specific product, the benefits are very few for the client. It is obvious that the product was developed to fill a gap in the market for the insurer and not to serve the cycling community.

ah ok, we on the same page then...will be good for their representative to step in any time.

[rouxtjie]

Mets is quoting from the policy document that Carpet put on her original post - page 12 Specific Exceptions; no.5.

yea, but as I have it, that document was later emailed to her, after the policy's inception.

[Blackheart]

Carpet, based on your description the repudiation appears valid unfortunately.

 

I would suggest that you address a letter to CycleUninsure's head office executive department (not the claims handler) detailing your experience and requesting an EX-GRATIA consideration. This is a settlement made from a sense of moral obligation, rather than legal requirement.

 

Such a payment may or may not consist of part of or the entire amount of your loss. Explain that your bike meant everything, and how it's loss has devastated you. They will make a decision based inter-alia on your claims experience, length of time with them and their overarching corporate approach.

 

Remember "NO" is never absolute, it's just a test to see if you'll go away easily. Good luck.

 

Yes, that's the route I went.

Still ended up with: 'Take it up with the Ombudsman'

[Mets]

I don't know if anyone saw the "Specific Exceptions" portion of this wording?:

3. Mechanical or electrical breakdown

4. damage due to and of which the underlying cause can be ascribed to latent defects, metal fatigue or any other inherent vice or manufacturing defect irrespective of whether or not the claim is entertained by the manufacturer

 

3. = Break your XTR RD - sorry Mechanical breakdown

4 = Your secondhand frame bought on the hub (not covered by the original warranty) breaks:

a) On a weld - sorry inherent vice / manufacturing defect

b) On the tube - sorry metal fatigue

 

This is not a cool policy.

[Blackheart]

i feel huge sympathy and will be donating some ash towards carpets new ride as soon as i get paid but have had a thought regrading the insurance claim:

 

if the policy states that no forced entry = no claim why is it a surprise that they are not paying out, if you have the policy schedule surely you should have read the document to make sure you are covered as the document sets out stipulations to ensure you are covered and they are protected against an opportunist. the fact its writing in the small print section does not invalidate that they did tell you.

i think the insurance okes are all sharks and insurance is a grudge purchase. personally i make sure i read all documentation thoroughly and ask questions of them if i dont understand something.

from my side i would rather be safe than sorry.

 

as stated i think they are ****s but cant really see what more they could have done to ensure you are waware of the risks. if however you did have the bike locked up etc and there was forced entry and they still refussed to pay that would be a different story..

 

please dont think i support the guys at cyclysure( i remember a story a while ago where they stipulated a certain thickness cable lock must be used( hope it was them), anyway it was something stupid that cant be found, since then i stay away from any form of dedicated cycle insurance and cover my bike as part of my household policy for all risks).

 

Good luck Carpet i have loads of bike parts lying in wait, for builds i want to do someday so if you need let me know ill donate to the new bike cause gladly.

 

That's them:

Two options Chain as below, or a RavX (not Serfas or Knog etc..only RavX) cable lock (type specified by them).

12mm diameter. Try finding that for a start, not in any hardware store - It's anchor chain.

Then try finding the SABS approved lock which they demand to fit such a chain.

 

To me the specifications are either drawn up by someone ignorant of the real world, or by someone very much aware of the real world and how these specifications work to the insurers benefit.

[Cassie]

Does all risks cover on a bike that's on your household insurance policy include 3rd party cover when riding it?

3rd party is often in car cover and liability cover in household but first I have heard of it being typically included in bicycle cover, would be nice if it does, my bike is with Miway.

 

do not for one moment think that "all risk" covers bicycles!! I made that mistake (SANTAM) when I ran out of talent and hacked up a R8000 repair bill...

My policy fine print says that bicycles needs to be specified...my arguement was that I knew it was not covered for theft under all risk...but thought it was covered for damage etc...

SANTAM was steadfast in their response that the MTB needed to be specified....

 

the All risk section however did pay me out for my clothes & helmet & bibs & jacket that got damaged during my dismount....win some lose some I guess...

lesson learned - read the fine print of your policy!!

[Joe Low]

yea, but as I have it, that document was later emailed to her, after the policy's inception.

 

Whatever the case, 21 pages of policy to insure a bicycle is excessive.

[Rata Del Spruit]

That's them:

Two options Chain as below, or a RavX (not Serfas or Knog etc..only RavX) cable lock (type specified by them).

12mm diameter. Try finding that for a start, not in any hardware store - It's anchor chain.

 

That should do it

 

http://i.imgur.com/XVPFkEu.jpg

[Hollard]

Hello cyclists.

 

As a company which is passionate about fairness and extremely passionate about cycling (besides sponsoring a bunch of cycling properties we also have a large Hollardite cycling community) we are really heartsore about this matter and wanted to provide some clarity. While we are prevented by law from discussing individual cases (to protect the privacy of our customers), we'd like to share these things:

 

1. While Cyclesure (our long-time broker partner), based on the facts at hand, told our customer that Hollard would be within its rights to reject the claim, a final decision about the claim had not yet been made at the time of the complaint. Any claim which could potentially be rejected is subjected to a thorough process in which all of the merits of the claim are assessed to ensure we're treating our customers fairly. In this case, we had subsequently and independently of any other communication arrived at a positive resolution for our customer. We'll be communicating that resolution to the customer.

 

2. The policy document that was posted to this thread is not the current policy wording for Cyclesure’s policy. They have a new document, which we think is much easier to read and certainly more jargon-free (we're striving to kill jargon but it’s a stubborn beast) and we would be happy to send anyone a copy on request.

 

3. We know that you cyclists know cycling better than we do, so we'll be looking at all of the comments to understand how we could potentially improve our policies (and please feel free to mail us if you have any ideas).

 

4. Lastly, we would like to stress that there really are some powerful avenues for any insured to pursue in cases where they feel that an insurer has treated them unfairly. These include lodging a formal complaint with the insurer and then, if no satisfaction is obtained, contacting the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance (www.osti.co.za). The Ombudsman is independent of insurance companies and charged with upholding the principles of fairness and equity in insurance dealings. And he really does.

 

If you have any queries regarding this or any matter, please feel free to contact us via ask@hollard.co.za.

[Rata Del Spruit]

Hello cyclists.

 

As a company which is passionate about fairness and extremely passionate about cycling (besides sponsoring a bunch of cycling properties we also have a large Hollardite cycling community) we are really heartsore about this matter and wanted to provide some clarity. While we are prevented by law from discussing individual cases (to protect the privacy of our customers), we'd like to share these things:

 

1. While Cyclesure (our long-time broker partner), based on the facts at hand, told our customer that Hollard would be within its rights to reject the claim, a final decision about the claim had not yet been made at the time of the complaint. Any claim which could potentially be rejected is subjected to a thorough process in which all of the merits of the claim are assessed to ensure we're treating our customers fairly. In this case, we had subsequently and independently of any other communication arrived at a positive resolution for our customer. We'll be communicating that resolution once all the paperwork is done.

 

2. The policy document that was posted to this thread is not the current policy wording for Cyclesure’s policy. They have a new document, which we think is much easier to read and certainly more jargon-free (we're striving to kill jargon but it’s a stubborn beast) and we would be happy to send anyone a copy on request.

 

3. We know that you cyclists know cycling better than we do, so we'll be looking at all of the comments to understand how we could potentially improve our policies (and please feel free to mail us if you have any ideas).

 

4. Lastly, we would like to stress that there really are some powerful avenues for any insured to pursue in cases where they feel that an insurer has treated them unfairly. These include lodging a formal complaint with the insurer and then, if no satisfaction is obtained, contacting the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance (www.osti.co.za). The Ombudsman is independent of insurance companies and charged with upholding the principles of fairness and equity in insurance dealings. And he really does.

 

If you have any queries regarding this or any matter, please feel free to contact us via ask@hollard.co.za.

 

Nice response, Hollard.

 

So, to clarify, the claim hasn't been rejected?

 

One of the issues that seems to have cropped up in this thread, though, is the way that policy terms and conditions are updated. Is there any way to make it clear to the client which parts of the policy have been updated and how they differ from the old wording? Also, if the update has been sent by email can an active response from the client be required?

[Guest EdEdEd]

Hoe cover hul nou hul wickets!

[Bloukrans]

Nice response, Hollard.

 

So, to clarify, the claim hasn't been rejected?

 

One of the issues that seems to have cropped up in this thread, though, is the way that policy terms and conditions are updated. Is there any way to make it clear to the client which parts of the policy have been updated and how they differ from the old wording? Also, if the update has been sent by email can an active response from the client be required?

It seems the claim was initially rejected and subsequently having regard to independent communications (the HUB!!), the claim was review and now looks like a positive ending for the client. The power of the Hub can never be underestimated. Insurance people - eish!!!!