Discovery Insure
Reject Discovery explanation not to cove

CLaim : 126 053

To whom this may concern:

I reject the fact that my case has been declined.

I do not believe it fair play, to penalise your client, for being honest about an incident about radio jamming and out of a car. I have not found any evidence of Discovery warning clients that this type of is still evident. To enable clients to be aware of this. The police officer indicated this prevalence is on the rise again when i reported it and the investigator when he came to take finger prints of my car said the same. Also Discovery do not have a specific exclusion clause for this? Discovery, your explanation, that there was no visible damage or forced entry, is agreed, but punitive. The wording in the policy document, only pertains to visible damage but does include the implication of forced entry- which surely this jamming type device is seen as force, as it did not allow my remote to operate effectively? Are you saying, to clients, if this happens, to lie, to throw a brick through there own window, or just to say you were pick pocketed or misplaced an item, to then receive cover? So, a planned, malicious type, has no cover for your clients? Absurd.

Company: Discovery Insure
Country: South Africa
City: Cape Town

  <     >