Absa
Claim rejected in obvious contradiction of policy

On the 19th I logged a claim with Absa Insurance for a leaking bathroom pipe. The claim was rejected on the grounds that it was an outlet pipe, only inlet pipes are covered. My policy states:
1.5 Leaking or overflowing from geysers, pipes, appliances, cisterns, baths and fixed water tanks and other water carrying apparatus
1.6 Leaking or bursting of pipes including repair or replacement of the burst or leaking pipe section. Failure to pipes must have occurred suddenly and the failure point must be able to be detected using conventional equipment and methods. Pipe failures that are due to rust, corrosion or by gradual deterioration or wear and tear will be repaired on the first occasion and the policy will thereafter be endorsed against pipe failures.
Nowhere in the policy does it stipulate what type of pipes are covered/excluded.
I queried this and told rejected because of no insured peril.
I'm failing to see how a clearly worded clause is being ignored and this claim is being rejected because of non-existent or unrelated factors. If the grounds for rejection are valid why have they changed?
Surely it's in Absa's best interests to keep the property in the best possible condition?

Company: Absa
Country: South Africa
City: Western Cape

  <     >