How Mutual & federal tried to screw me.

[n***@gmail.com]

This happened several years ago, and might not apply to the present
management and ownership of M & F.

Since I still had a nominal amount outstanding on my bond of my rental
property, the compulsary [for mortgaged property] policy was still in place.

The tenant left the electricity heater on, for the puppy, while going
out one night; and the only room in the old farm-house which had a wooden
floor burned and cracked the plaster from the walls.
So the tenant moved out, after a few days.

While I was waiting for M & F to attend to the claim, the unoccupied
property had the motor stolen from the water-pump.
I had no municipal water and we used the electric-pump.

Since it was evident that M & F could keep me waiting as long as they
wanted, and I was able to find a good builder to replace the burned floor
and wall plaster, I allowed my M & F claim to go uncompensated.

Several years later, the well renovated cottage on the same premises burnt
down and the tenant's child died in the fire, in a locked room where he
had been playing with matches, partly because his mother had taught him to
light her cigarettes, which I witnessed when interviewing the tenants.

I was out of the country at the time, but eventually the M & F 'claims
evaluator' came around one Sunday in his flashy car, wearing white-topped
shoes like that 'spiv that used to do the early vodacom TV adds'.
His main task apparently was to evaluate how stupid I was, because their
compensation offer was based on:
the proportion of the insured value, which the burned down structure
represented of the total area of all structures on the property.

Insurance law/evaluation is simple and has been establish for centuries.

If you insure 2 idential buildings on 1 property for a total of $10,
and the one is totally destroyed by fire, and costs $7 to replace,
you are entitled to insurance indemnity of $5.

If you don't understand that, you should not be reading this post.

If you insure your property's building; 1 size3 old house, 1 size4 cow-shed
and a size1 new cottage; for $10 in total.
And if the 'size4 cow-shed' burns down, you are not entitles to 4/8 = 50%
of the indemnity, just because the 'size4 cow-shed' represents 50% of the
total area of the buildings.

Analagously the M & F evaluator's 'offer' was absurd.
Once they discover that they can't fool you, they submitt to justice.
Today it would be a disaster for any body who had to employ an attorney
in SA for such a matter. If he wasn't screwed by the insurer the attorney
would skin him. Let's not yet talk about MVA claims ......?

[n***@gmail.com]

I came across a case of a fashion model who lost 5 meters of cupboard
full of fashion gowns. The assessor claimed that these gowns were
usually worn only once, i.e at the fashion show, they were therefore
worthless as they had come to the end of their life!

That's not exactly correct.
The key concept is INDEMNITY.
You are entitled to the [proportion of your insurance- in case
you're under insured, but not OVER insured] loss to YOU.

Your finger is also "worthless" except to you.
So the costumes were no longer worth the initial cost which was
justified for the once-only exhibition. But would have been worth
[to the fashion model] sentimental or what ever reasons s/he
was keeping [and paying for the cost-of-keeping] them.
Which is difficult/impossible to evaluate.

If s/he had insured the costumes specifically for/before the
once-off exhibition then the insurance premium was paid
for just that period; and no question arises.

But if you insure your dog, they can't take the money and
then say the dog was worth nothing, although they will
try to.

The important fact, is that the insurers try to screw you,
and only yield when you show that you are not a fool.
That's why I'm exposing them: to warn other future victims.