The power of social media once again came into play when a claim dispute was resolved after the insurer initially turned down a claim.
According to media reports, DA MP Cameron Mackenzie was shot and wounded during an attempted robbery in Midrand last week Wednesday. News24 reported that the injuries left his car covered in blood and he contacted his insurer to assess the extent of the damage.
Mackenzie told Fin24 that a call centre agent informed him that he was not covered for such an incident, and that his claim would not be processed. As a result, he took to social media to express his disappointment at the insurer’s position. “This is not just about me, it is about other people who have encountered similar problems with insurance companies,” he mentioned to Fin24.
The company has since retracted its position and offered an apology to Mackenzie, saying that the matter was escalated for further assessment, and the company had reached out to assist the client.
Ramifications of the rise of social media and impact on insurance claims have truly become a talking point. At the end it still however boils down to basics, both consumer and insurer should dot the i’s and cross the t’s – both have obligations and rules to abide by.
The public outcry via social media in instances such as these will increase over time, and product providers will continue to buckle under this pressure to minimise damage to the brand. Regulatory calls for simplified policy wording will weaken the legal base on which companies relied on in the past. The danger increases that, where such instances arise, the messenger, in the form of the adviser, will have to bear the brunt for not disclosing material conditions of the contract. Hopefully, some of the proposals under the RDR will distribute liability more equally in future.
Click here to read the Fin24 article.