I attempted to claim on my homeowner's policy in November 2012 after my patio roof collapsed due to storm damage, my only claim in over 20 years. Outsurance sent their assessor Mark to inspect and my claim was rejected on the grounds of wear & tear, rust having weakened the support structure. This is covered in the "small print" of the contract but my contention is that the reason my home loan bank selected Outsurance was to cover all damage conditions. No attempt was made by Outsurance to subject the steel supports to any specialist testing, so it's obvious that any damage my house sustains in future will be rejected as "fair wear & tear" should I lodge a claim. This is not in the spirit of the contract & it appears that all Outsurance is concerned with is to collect the customer's premiums and avoid any compensation for claims, rendering "insurance" as totally useless!
0 comments