Image
Icon

Directory

IconAppraisers and Valuers
IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconDefensive Driver Training
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconInsurance Brokers - Alphabetical Listing
IconInsurance Brokers by Type of Product or Service Needed
IconInsurance Companies
IconInsurance Consultants
IconLightning Damage & Surge Protection Specialists
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes and Cover
IconPremium Financing
IconPublic Loss Adjustors
IconPublications
IconRating Agencies
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconRisk Finance
IconRisk Management
IconRisk Surveyors
IconSalvage Operators
IconTelephone Quotes
IconVehicle Accident Management
IconVehicle and Household Risk Inspection Services
IconVehicle Tracking
IconWellness Programs
Image
  Subscribe To »

Alleged fraudster complains to Ombudsman

Published

2017

Fri

11

Aug

 

The audacity of criminals appear to increase in leaps and bounds, as witnessed by a case study published in the Short-term Ombud’s latest annual report.

The complainant approached the office of the Ombudsman for assistance following the rejection of a claim submitted to the insurer for the theft of a motor vehicle on 6 July 2016. The vehicle was placed on cover on 1 June 2016 for an insured sum of R509 900.

During the validation of the claim, the complainant submitted that he purchased a used vehicle in May 2016 for the total price of R495 000. According to the complainant, the parties agreed that he would make an initial cash payment of R190 000 in May with the balance consisting of a further cash payment upon the delivery of the vehicle in December. The vehicle was registered in the complainant’s name on 13 May 2016 after he paid R190 000 to the seller. The complainant was in possession of the registration certificate and attended to the deregistration of the motor vehicle after the theft.

The assessor appointed by the insurer to validate the claim discovered discrepancies in the registration of the vehicle. He found that the vehicle had originally been registered in the name of a vehicle rental company. The vehicle was subsequently registered to Salvage Management Disposal and then to Zurich Insurance.

Upon further investigation, the assessor found that the vehicle had been written off following a motor vehicle accident on 13 July 2015. A Natis audit trail revealed that the vehicle was deregistered and demolished on 17 September 2015. The vehicle salvage was purchased by a used spares proprietor and stripped for spare parts. The vehicle salvage was inspected by the assessor who confirmed from the chassis and VIN numbers that it was in fact the same vehicle on cover. At this stage, the insurer could not rule out the possibility that the insured vehicle had been cloned or did not exist. The assessor’s report, including the Natis audit and photographs of the vehicle salvage were provided to the Ombudsman for consideration.

The insurer required the complainant to submit proof of purchase of the motor vehicle in light of the assessment findings. The complainant was not able to provide any proof that he paid the amount of R190 000 to the seller, or that he owned an Audi motor vehicle that would have formed the balance of the payment. The complainant also failed to submit an agreement of sale or any service related documentation in respect of the vehicle. The contact details of the seller were also not available. The insurer raised suspicion about the fact that the seller could not be located even though the complainant still owed her the balance of the purchase price.

The insurer rejected the complainant’s claim on two grounds:

  1. The complainant did not furnish true and complete information when submitting the claim. The general conditions of the policy provide that if the insured gives false information, wrong descriptions or fails to inform the insurer of any relevant information, the insured will not enjoy cover under the relevant section of the policy. The insurer argued that the complainant did not provide true and complete information regarding the purchase of the vehicle and the circumstances under which the vehicle was purchased. In considering this rejection reason, the Ombudsman held that the insurer had not established sufficient facts upon which to argue that the complainant had submitted false information.
  2. The complainant failed to supply proof of ownership of the vehicle he was claiming for. This provision is set out under the general conditions of the policy relating to claims.

The Ombudsman upheld the insurer’s decision to reject the claim on the ground that the complainant failed to supply proof of ownership of the vehicle he was claiming for.

One shudders to think that this person had the audacity to lay a complaint with the Ombud after being caught out. The insurance industry must spend a fortune every year to prevent crime, and this is paid by honest clients via increased premiums.

One can only hope that cases like these are reported to the police for investigation and prosecution. Perhaps a “name
-and-shame” list of convicted fraudsters will act as a deterrent.

 
Source: Paul Kruger: Moonstone Compliance (Pty) Ltd
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

Headline Risks: Seeing the big picture

By Dale Cooper/The Risk Doctor Partnership Risk assessments are often undertaken in detail, or several assessments are conducted in different parts of an organisation, project or program. Detail may be appropriate ...
Read More »

  

Copyright in South African law

For built environment professionals   In our increasingly hyper-connected world, seemingly unrelated events can have a profound impact on a business and professional career. It is crucial for ...
Read More »

  

Hong Kong: Concerns Despite Robust Growth

By Coface, the international trade credit insurance company GDP figures show that Hong Kong’s economy expanded by 3. 8% Y-o-Y in Q2 (1. Rising asset prices and strong consumer spending, backed ...
Read More »

  

Make our roads safer and get back cash

Friday. That’s the day, according to Dialdirect, when most accidents are likely to occur in South Africa. Need something more specific? How about between 15h00 and 18h00. That’s the time that most of ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Maturity Value:

Value of an investment life policy at maturity date.
More Definitions »

 
 
By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Stoker Risk & ICT (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2017.
All Rights Reserved.
Icon

Advertise

  Icon

eZine

  Icon

Contact IG

Icon

Media Pack

  Icon

RSS Feeds