Santie Dubber contradicts herself by saying that she did not imply no burglary had taken place but then goes on to use the word "coincidental" in her report. She admits that a true loss as occurred but does not behave in a fairplay manner. She does not state that Zurich has been negligent on their part by not following up whether contract requirements had been fulfilled. She also made a claim that we had no burglar bars and security gates without checking, when in fact we did have. She also claimed that the reason why the "burglar alarm warranty" was in place was due to the fact that there was no burglar bars, however when proved wrong she then goes back to the "wording".
0 comments