Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance
Ombudsman favours insure

Dear Peter
I have e-mailed you the details of my objection to the ruling made by Thasnim Dawood. Outsurance have rejected my claim based on material misrepresentation, their proof - statements from 3rd parties and the telephonic policy take-up call. I have categorically provided your office documented proof of:
1. Outsurance agent quoted me as a regular driver without explicity defining regular driver, when she was encouraging me to note myself as the regular driver. Outsurance have in no manner or form disputed my understanding of the term regular driver and cannot scientifically disprove my definition in contradiction of the term thus making their definition ambiguous.(Listen to recording between Gert Jacobs and myself- I requested this on the 8th of Jan 2013 and still not received)
2. Outsurance have fabricated statements by "Marius" who supposedly shares a parking bay with my husband - confirmation provided from husband's employer that no such person works and in addition proof that the content of his "statement is also false. Statements from each of the "witnesses" confirming they were misled in the questioning, did not understand the context of the information provided.

Company: Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance
Country: South Africa
City: Gauteng

  <     >