Disgusted with MTN Insurance

Kosmik

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
31,339
Reaction score
11,823
Location
In the valley
So as some forumites would know, I was hijacked in September and my cellphone was stolen. Now MTN insurance have offered to payout my phone ( I had it insured for R5000 ) however the payout is on the following terms:

1. In the form of a voucher which MUST be redeemed at select MTN stores
2. You are only allowed to purchase a single item with the voucher, regardless of value or remaining amount. The balance is forfeit.
3. Cash is not an option.

Now, I'm happy to replace the phone with a phone of my choice but phones range from R2k to R4.6k and I'd actually rather wait for my next upgrade to get the phone I want and either resell or store the "payout phone" as spare. Or preferably have the cash. I don't have the option however and if I chose a lesser phone, which I'm forced to by going to their stores, not only do I forfeit the balance of the voucher but I have to pay in a excess as well.

Surely this can't be considered fair?
 
Consider yourself lucky that they are paying out imo.

Personally I'd boost it above their payout. i.e. I'd be happier paying in 500 extra, getting a 5.5k+ phone than getting a 4.6k phone & feeling like I got screwed over. Sure that messes with your "wait for upgrade" plan but what can one do.

I also wouldn't touch the sell payout route...that sounds like a mission of note and you'll likely take a significant hit.

>>Surely this can't be considered fair?

It is necessary. People try to screw with insurance in all kinds of ways so they need to enforce rules a bit. That particular set of rules seems reasonable to me all things consider - despite being inconvenient for you
 
HavocXphere said:
>>Surely this can't be considered fair?

It is necessary. People try to screw with insurance in all kinds of ways so they need to enforce rules a bit. That particular set of rules seems reasonable to me all things consider - despite being inconvenient for you
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, if I insure a item for a value, I deserve to get the benefit of that value. Insurance is there to recoup a loss, not to milk you for it. Why not allow it as a store credit to purchase whatever you want up to that value?
 
Because this particular policy probably aims to restore you to the position you would have been had you not suffered the loss.

A. You had a phone.
B. You were mugged. You no longer had a phone.
C. They restore you A.

My advice: quit complaining and move on. Life is to short to fret about these petty things.
 
ah I see what you mean. That would depend on the exact word of the insurance contract I guess.
 
Arthur said:
Because this particular policy probably aims to restore you to the position you would have been had you not suffered the loss.

A. You had a phone.
B. You were mugged. You no longer had a phone.
C. They restore you A.

My advice: quit complaining and move on. Life is to short to fret about these petty things.
Click to expand...

If A is insured for a specific value, you are entitled to that value. You pay a monthly premium for that specific value. The basics of insurance is to recoup what you have lost, not to replace the item you have lost with a lesser valued item than what you have been paying a premium for.
 
Kosmik said:
If A is insured for a specific value, you are entitled to that value. You pay a monthly premium for that specific value.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

Many policies are written in a way that caps it to lower of actual value or insured value.
 
HavocXphere said:
Not necessarily.

Many policies are written in a way that caps it to lower of actual value or insured value.
Click to expand...

Understandable however this policy specificly states the R5000 value and they are not disputing the amount, just forcing the manner in which it can be redeemed and keeping the differance of the forced transaction for themselves.
 
Kosmik said:
I have to disagree, if I insure a item for a value, I deserve to get the benefit of that value. Insurance is there to recoup a loss, not to milk you for it. Why not allow it as a store credit to purchase whatever you want up to that value?
Click to expand...

+1, do the best you can and then find another insurer.
 
Of course I don't know, but I suspect this sort of insurance is not the same as a general insurance policy. I think it's very unlikely that a major company would pull a schlenter like the OP avers. This must be specified in the policy, ie that indemnification is limited to device replacement at a defined or calculable value and only at an MTN outlet. It's been through Legal and they must have thousands of claims. Readily resolved by reading the Agreement.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Of course I don't know, but I suspect this sort of insurance is not the same as a general insurance policy. I think it's very unlikely that a major company would pull a schlenter like the OP avers. This must be specified in the policy, ie that indemnification is limited to device replacement at a defined or calculable value and only at an MTN outlet. It's been through Legal and they must have thousands of claims. Readily resolved by reading the Agreement.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is the wording on the contract
In consideration the payment of the premium the Insurer agrees to indemnify or compensate the Subscriber by payment or at the option of the Insurer by replacement, reinstatement or repair in respect of the Insured Events occurring during the period of insurance and as otherwise provided for in terms of this Policy up to the sums insured, limits of indemnity, compensation and other amounts specified.
Click to expand...

So, if my english doesn't fail me, they are required to either pay out OR replace,re-instatement,repair. As the phone is gone it cannot be repaired or re-instated which means either payout or replace, nowhere does it stipulate you must accept a voucher for a MTN store and be bound by further conditions.
 
It all depends what reinstatement means. They could argue that by saying you can pick any phone up to R5k from any of their shops they are effectively reinstating. The voucher is just a letter to the store saying you can do so.
 
Kosmik said:
Understandable however this policy specificly states the R5000 value
Click to expand...
And they gave you the option of extracting 5k worth of value...but you forfeited that by picking a 1k phone.

...thats what they'll argue anyway.

Wyzak said:
+1, do the best you can and then find another insurer.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll be able to find better price/value elsewhere...not when MTN can give you a replacement at cost & the have economies of scale.
 
Arthur said:
It all depends what reinstatement means. They could argue that by saying you can pick any phone up to R5k from any of their shops they are effectively reinstating. The voucher is just a letter to the store saying you can do so.
Click to expand...

The stores won't let you have any phone up to that value, only their pre-paid options.
 
HavocXphere said:
And they gave you the option of extracting 5k worth of value...but you forfeited that by picking a 1k phone.

...thats what they'll argue anyway.


I doubt you'll be able to find better price/value elsewhere...not when MTN can give you a replacement at cost & the have economies of scale.
Click to expand...

It's not at cost, retail value which puts them in the same boat as any other provider.
 
Arthur said:
OK. Makes sense. 24m subscription contracts hide the real cost of phones.
Click to expand...

Agreed but there are meduim level contract phones that fall within the price range. The beurocracy however says they can't sell me one of those phones, has to be sold as part of a contract.
 
Kosmik said:
Them no, me yes. The point is if it's replacement at retail value I should be able to purchase whereever I want, not limited to a MTN store.
Click to expand...
eh - ok lets try this another way.

You willingly signed a legal contract. Both you and MTN are bound by said contract. Its not a case of what you "should be able to" or whats right or whats fair. They complied with their obligations...end of story.

Not trying to be mean here...thats just how contracts work. Still - as per my initial post...at least they didn't try to block the claim outright on a technicality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X