Insured car was damaged in rear-end collision whist stationary at stop street/robots. Driver of car behind very apologetic and admitted liability. Later would appear to have been persuaded by her insurance (Unity) to deny resonsibility but not before asking for a second quote for damage. After no change in quote, change her allegation to her car being the innocent party when car in front reversed into it. Latest excuse is the damaged car swerved in front of her car from adjacent lane, and she was unable to avoid contact.
Outsurance have dragged their feet resolving this, after approving damage to be repaired only after policy excess of R3, 000 was paid by their client for up-front repair cost of total R3, 500. Outsurance have generally failed to report on progress of claim despite repeated requests, either by phone or by email. On threat to complain via Hellopeter site, have recently admitted lack of progress, and suggested an approach to Small Cllaims Court was advisable. This would appear to be a very poor illustration of "Bending Over Backwards"??
0 comments