Cellsure
Vodasure/Cellsure refuse claim - remote jamming

Letter to Cellsure: On 20th September we were robbed, by remote jamming, I have CCTV footage of the incident. After submitting claim to Vodasure, I was phoned, informing that my claim has been rejected as 'remote jamming' is not an acceptable reason for a claim. Policy Wording, and specifically item 2. iv:
"Loss of or damage to the equipment resulting from the or any attempt there at from any unoccupied vehicle, unless such vehicle is locked and the handset is concealed out of sight and forcible and violent entry into the vehicle is made, necessitating repairs to such vehicle, and the original repairers account for such damage is supplied with the claim." I strongly object to the rejection: I have PROOF of a, and supplied you with a SAPS Case Number. MY HANDSET WAS CONCEALED OUT OF SIGHT; it was in my handbag in the boot of the vehicle to ensure that it would not be visible to anyone or get damaged in my handbag or removed from it whilst we were in the store. The vehicle was unoccupied for 6 minutes.
Their reply: note that we understand that you did comply with the policy by concealing the item but unfortunately this claim will remain declined as Jamming is not covered

Company: Cellsure
Country: South Africa
City: 82 Wessel Rd, Metropolit

  <     >