Insurance interrogated me

[Kloofvreter]

Santam

You are talking KACK.

Neither Santam nor Hollard has ever required me to install a tracker.

I'd MUCH rather be insured with those companies via a broker than through anything in the Telesure group.

 

[creeper]

You are talking KACK.

Neither Santam nor Hollard has ever required me to install a tracker.

I'd MUCH rather be insured with those companies via a broker than through anything in the Telesure group.

There is a tracking waiver which increases your premium. So, you don't have to install a tracker.

 

[supersunbird]

You are talking KACK.

Neither Santam nor Hollard has ever required me to install a tracker.

I'd MUCH rather be insured with those companies via a broker than through anything in the Telesure group.

You are talking the kack because of your comprehension failure, retracting your erroneous statement would be a good solution.

 

[Kloofvreter]

You are talking the kack because of your comprehension failure, retracting your erroneous statement would be a good solution.

What exactly is wrong with my comprehension here?

 

[supersunbird]

What exactly is wrong with my comprehension here?

This is interesting, I have always wondered why my insurance company never asks me to install a tracker in a new car while everybody else claims that they cannot get insurance without a tracker. They obviously go for the cheap and nasty 'insurance companies'

And that insurance company is

Here you go.

 

[Pitbull]

Alexander Forbes also has no Tracking requirement. You do get a discount if you fit one though.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Here you go.

Right. I stand corrected.

 

[Stonemason]

You are talking KACK.

Neither Santam nor Hollard has ever required me to install a tracker.

I'd MUCH rather be insured with those companies via a broker than through anything in the Telesure group.

Thats what I said. You should read a post carefully before you reply. Santam NEVER asks me to install a tracker because they know that if a car is stolen, it is removed within the first 30 minutes. It is therefore worthless as a means to recover a stolen car.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Thats what I said. You should read a post carefully before you reply. Santam NEVER asks me top install a tracker because they know that if a car is stolen, it is removed within the first 30 minutes. It is therefore worthless to recover a stolen car.

Neither does Outsurance.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Thats what I said. You should read a post carefully before you reply. Santam NEVER asks me to install a tracker because they know that if a car is stolen, it is removed within the first 30 minutes. It is therefore worthless to recover a stolen car.

Yeah, whatever. I thought you responded Santam to the question as to who the cheap and nasty insurance company is.

 

[maumau]

These "save if you drive properly" trackers are the biggest scam yet. It's blatantly obvious that, if you're in an accident, they'll dig up that data and find something like "you didn't stop dead at a stop street 2 months ago" or "you drove 71 for 2 metres in a 60 zone a year ago", and subsequently invalidate a claim that way.

Which is why I refused point blank to install that thing in my car. Discovery delivered it and it went straight into a cupboard where it is to this day.

I've since left Discovery due to bad service. Constant "we're experiencing high call volumes" delays in replying to emails

Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Pitbull]

Neither does Outsurance.

Not a correct statement.

It's a requirement in some vehicle. They will not insure certain vehicles without a tracking device.

 

[cpu.]

What does that mean? Weren't you driving?

He (the driver) is listed as secondary driver and the insurer/representative claim he is the primary driver (policy holder).
If he is indeed primary, the claim can be rejected.

As explained here:

So are you the primary or secondary driver? This affects the premium you pay. If the primary driver on the policy is say a 65 year old pensioner, the premium would be a lot lower than say a 21 year old new driver. Many people lie that their father is the primary driver to get a cheaper premium without realizing the issues it can cause when having to claim.

Edit: Most insurers have a clause in the policy documents saying that providing false information will cause the claim to be rejected. Some even go so far to say this is a criminal offence because you're benefiting at the expense of other policyholders through falsifying information.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Not a correct statement.

It's a requirement in some vehicle. They will not insure certain vehicles without a tracking device.

I have 2 vehicles. Neither have tracking devices.

I assume they'd have reasonable reasons for requiring it in specific vehicles.

 

[Craig_]

This is interesting, I have always wondered why my insurance company never asks me to install a tracker in a new car while everybody else claims that they cannot get insurance without a tracker. They obviously go for the cheap and nasty 'insurance companies'

I currently don't have any trackers in my cars, Mutual and federal (now old mutual insure), so it's possible.

Not a correct statement.

It's a requirement in some vehicle. They will not insure certain vehicles without a tracking device.

I had trackers in both the Polo and the Jetta (previous cars). Should've just said no.

 

[Pitbull]

I have 2 vehicles. Neither have tracking devices.

I assume they'd have reasonable reasons for requiring it in specific vehicles.

Yes I too would assume so. I just don't know which though. But I do know for sure they have mandatory tracking devices on certain cars. My guess would be Polos and Toyota Fortuners. That would just be an educated guess.

 

[F1 Fan]

Sounds similar to what I went through with Budget Insurance.

 

[Claymore]

It may be easy to verify if a person bought alcohol (if you can somehow bully him into showing you his bank statement as some of the shady companies do) but you cannot prove that he was over the limit without a blood test.

Note that many insurance companies have a clause that could repudiate your claim if you are under the influence of alcohol, not just over the the legal limit. In other words, if they can show that you had any alcohol, they could repudiate your claim.

 

[Pitbull]

Note that many insurance companies have a clause that could repudiate your claim if you are under the influence of alcohol, not just over the the legal limit. In other words, if they can show that you had any alcohol, they could repudiate your claim.

I think most insurance companies have that clause.

Reason: If blood is taken as an example the lab results could take months and court cases years. That way, if your blood was drawn or you were arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence it gives them grounds to repudiate without having to settle and try and recuperate the money from you after years of court cases. Just makes things easier and quicker for all involved.

 

[supersunbird]

I think most insurance companies have that clause.

Reason: If blood is taken as an example the lab results could take months and court cases years. That way, if your blood was drawn or you were arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence it gives them grounds to repudiate without having to settle and try and recuperate the money from you after years of court cases. Just makes things easier and quicker for all involved.

And if it turns out (months later) you weren't intoxicated at all?