Motorist’s big insurance victory agaist OUTSurance

[dlk001]

A motorist has won a court battle against Outsurance, which had refused to pay him out after a crash because he had not disclosed two previous accidents.

Two years ago Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Piet Koen ruled that Outsurance’s repudiation of Sherwin Jerrier’s claim for R600 000 for the damage to his Audi R8 Quattro after an accident in 2010 was correct.

But in a ruling on Tuesday three appeal judges disagreed and, failing any further appeals, Outsurance will now have to pay him for the damages to his vehicle, as well as his legal costs.

http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/motorist-s-big-insurance-victory-1.1882100#.VZ5TtkYmOb7

 

[The_Unbeliever]

"hoisted by their own petard"

 

[ryu]

what a nice outcome especially after reading this part:

Outsurance first alleged that I had been under the influence of alcohol. Then, when they could not prove that, they moved to the non-disclosure issue. It is obvious they were looking at ways not to pay.

not the first time i heard of this from outsurance, think i remember reading a story here on mybb about them looking for ways not to pay on a R2m claim for a house fire some time back.

Anyways its good news for consumers, take them to court if you are in the right and they still refuse to pay.

The ombudsman/FSB should also be looking into their practices unless they are like icasa and toothless

Edit: Here's that link to the house fire i mentioned above

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/279261-HOW-OUTSURANCE-GETS-OUT-OF-PAYING

 

[Sonic2k]

Ombudsman and FSB are indeed toothless.. the only ombud that is worth anything is the PFA.
I am no longer with Outsurance, because they suck... and don't want to pay...

 

[Drifter]

Watch all Outsurance members premiums increase "adhoc".

 

[Rusty0]

Nice!! Well done!

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Outsurance

/out

Insurance - grudge purchase - suspect at best to most consumers ...... I hope outsurance feel the error of ther slimey greasy ways, and hope that the other [-]leeches[/-] insurance companies heed this case.

 

[Fazda]

Ombudsman and FSB are indeed toothless.. the only ombud that is worth anything is the PFA.
I am no longer with Outsurance, because they suck... and don't want to pay...

I can confirm that the Insurance Ombudsman is absolutely toothless, after contesting a very small claim over the past 6 months - they did not listen to my side of the story at all, instead blindly followed the Insurance Company's insistence that I read the small print ( I did) and they were still wrong - handled by a few incompetent office girls, as far as I can see!

 

[LazyLion]

People need to understand how Outsurance keeps their rates so low.
They do it by routinely refusing to pay out on claims.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

People need to understand how Outsurance keeps their rates so low.
They do it by routinely refusing to pay out on claims.

Thats how I kept my virginity into my late 40s, I just refused to put out .....

 

[Cray]

People need to understand how Outsurance keeps their rates so low.
They do it by routinely refusing to pay out on claims.

Low Rates Maybe I am not their target market but my last two cars I have got them to quote their premiums have been about 15% higher than others...

 

[Archer]

I don't get this
He had two incidents (one with a pothole, another with a bakkie) and didn't report either because he didn't want to claim... reporting something doesn't mean you'll claim... and your no claim bonus remains intact. And obviously someone who regularly has incidents should have a higher risk profile and therefore higher premiums. So why did the appeal judges overturn the original decision based on (according to the article) the fact that he would lose his no claim bonus?

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Low Rates Maybe I am not their target market but my last two cars I have got them to quote their premiums have been about 15% higher than others...

I was ONCE with Auto and General. Premiums went up, so I moved to Outsurance. Their premiums went up (and in both cases by almost 20%). So I moved back to A and G. The following year, the premiums went up above inflation. So, I Hellopetered them, and in the ensuing discussion, I was told that although profile plays a role, so too does getting new customers.

In short, as informed - even if the risk profile goes down, the premiums dont, the initial premium is based on risk, and where the risk is low, a subsidised premium is offered to get the client onto the books. The guy I spoke to was of the opinion that most folks get insurance, complain a bit about the premium increases, but stay with their insurer, and really only worry about the costs in the event of a claim.

With insurance - in fact MOST contracts - its not whats in the contract that will catch you, but whats NOT in the contract.

 

[Rouxenator]

Two wrongs don't make a right (nor left).
Outsurance is wrong because it is outsurance.
The vehicle owner is wrong because the car.

 

[ponder]

I don't get this
He had two incidents (one with a pothole, another with a bakkie) and didn't report either because he didn't want to claim... reporting something doesn't mean you'll claim... and your no claim bonus remains intact. And obviously someone who regularly has incidents should have a higher risk profile and therefore higher premiums. So why did the appeal judges overturn the original decision based on (according to the article) the fact that he would lose his no claim bonus?

Jerrier, assisted by advocates Maurice Pillemer and Ryan Naidu, took the matter on appeal to the Natal Provincial Division and on Tuesday Judge Mahendra Chetty, with Judges Rashid Vahed and Thoba Poyo-Dlwati concurring, said the policy in question did not stipulate any ongoing duty to report “incidents” which, because of their triviality, an insured person had sorted out himself.

And even if it did, this obligation was not set out in any particularity and would result in a “flood of information on entirely irrelevant events” creating general confusion and uncertainty among clients.

Outsurance, the judges said, was the “self-proclaimed leader” in the market and “prided itself” on saving consumers money by offering premiums based on the exclusion of brokers.

“It proclaims to ‘say it simply … there is no fine print’ and ‘this is a plain language document… there are no hidden surprises’.

“Unfortunately it would appear that the wording of the policy is not as simple as it seems… and there is uncertainty as to what was expected of an insured person who may not want to lodge a claim in the hope of preserving his bonus.

“This is what has given rise to this present litigation,” they said.

Something along those lines.

 

[Cray]

I wonder what the premiums are for an Audi R8, the mind boggles..

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Two wrongs don't make a right (nor left).

But 3 lefts make a right

 

[ryu]

Found that link to the house claim

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/279261-HOW-OUTSURANCE-GETS-OUT-OF-PAYING

People really need to stay away from this insurer

 

[kianm]

But 3 lefts make a right

Creative

 

[THE_CHOSEN_1]

I'm glad this guy won the case against outsurance....but..

Are the outsurance bonus pay outs quite large? I ask because this the guy drives an R8 which from what I know, are not cheap. so I'm guessing if the guy can afford the R8, does he really need the out bonus?

I'm assuming he has low premiums since he didn't claim previously and maybe over a certain age and probably insures his vehicles with the house and everything...

Its something along the lines of if you buying a high performance car and asking about the petrol costs then you probably cannot afford the car.