Discovery Insure maintained that in rejecting the claim of one of its clients after her car was stolen, it acted fairly and in terms of the agreement it entered into with all its customers, that the mandatory tracker device in these insured vehicles must be in working order.

Nicole Hoolsema (plaintiff) recently turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, where she claimed an amount from Discovery Insure for her stolen vehicle. Discovery Insure, however, refused to pay her as it claimed the tracker device in her vehicle was faulty.

While the main matter must still serve before court, Hoolsema at this stage turned to court to amend her particulars of claim to include that, as far as she was aware, the tracker was in working order.

“The claim, submitted in November 2023, was declined because the car’s tracking device was not working at the time of the loss, which is a condition of theft cover under the policy,” Discovery Insure said.

It explained that Discovery Insure regularly informs clients of the status of their tracking devices to ensure they are in working order, as required for cover. Before the incident involving Hoolsema, Discovery Insure contacted her on two occasions, advising her that the device was faulty and should be replaced, he said.

The outcome of her claim was upheld by Discovery Insure’s internal claims disputes process in February last year and later by the National Financial Ombud Scheme of South Africa (NFOSA) a few months later, which prompted Hoolsema to turn to the high court in a bid to force the insurer to pay her.

“We are confident that the claim was handled correctly, transparently, and in line with both policy terms and the principles of treating customers fairly,” Discovery Insure meanwhile said. It added that the decision to reject the claim was based on factual evidence and contractual requirements, which are applied consistently for all clients.

Hoolsema’s car was subsequently stolen, and in November 2023, she lodged a claim to be compensated. The claim was rejected by Discovery on the basis of the tracking device allegedly not working. Hoolsema, meanwhile, said she had complied with the conditions set out by Discovery when she signed the agreement and, as far as she is concerned, the tracker was working.

Discovery said the repudiation was based on an email sent to the plaintiff informing her that the tracking device was faulty prior to the theft. The plaintiff claimed she never received such an email and maintained that the device was installed and in working order. She subsequently indicated that she wanted to amend her summons to add that she always understood the device to be in good working condition.

Discovery objected to this amendment, arguing that it failed to plead that the device was in fact in full working order at all times, as stipulated in the policy. It argued that it needed to be proven by the plaintiff that the device was in full working order and not simply that she “understood the tracking device was in good working condition”.

Judge Noluntu Bam, meanwhile, allowed the amendment and said it clarified Hoolsema’s position and will contribute to a better resolution of the dispute when the facts of the matter are later argued during the main application.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link