![\"\"](\"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Rand-value-insurance.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe majority of motor complaints considered by the OSTI, at 74%, were for accidental damage, said Ayanda Mazwi senior assistant Ombudsman.<\/p>\n
“This was also the case in 2017. Warranty and mechanical breakdown claims comprised 9%. Theft and hijack claims comprised 8%, a slight decrease from 9% in 2017,” she said.<\/p>\n
“The primary cause for complaints was the amount offered for the settlement of claims. The disputes varied from the calculation of vehicle and\/or salvage values, uninsured credit short-falls and accessories, excesses and the use of alternate or second hand part prices in calculating the repair amount, to name a few.”<\/p>\n
Mazwi said that 61% of complaints considered by OSTI under homeowner\u2019s insurance related to claims for damage caused by acts of nature.<\/p>\n
These claims relate primarily to storm-related loss. In 2018, this figure dropped to 58%. “Theft and burglary claims, on the other hand, increased from 4% in 2017 to 6% in 2018,” she said.<\/p>\n
Most complained about insurers<\/strong><\/p>\n The ombudsman\u2019s report highlights the insurers who received the most complaints but stressed that there are some caveats to the data.<\/p>\n Specifically, larger insurers invariably draw a proportionally larger number of complaints.<\/p>\n “No adverse conclusions should be drawn against any insurer based purely on the number of complaints against them received by this office,” it said.<\/p>\n “Larger insurers issue proportionately more policies which cannot form the basis of a complaint to this office due to our jurisdictional limits.<\/p>\n “Thus, for example, when considering the percentage of complaints received by this office against a large insurer, the large insurer, upon a superficial analysis, therefore appears to attract a relatively low number of complaints,” the report’s authors said.<\/p>\n The more important statistic is the proportion of personal lines complaints relative to an insurer\u2019s share of the total personal lines claims reported to the FSCA, the ombudsman said.<\/p>\n The clearest indicator of this is the number of complaints to this office per thousand claims received by an insurer (column five), it said.<\/p>\n “Where an insurer receives a high number of complaints to this office per thousand claims, this may be an indicator that claims are dealt with unfairly by the insurer.”<\/p>\n However, this statistic should be considered in conjunction with the overturn rate \u2013 an indicator that the decision of the insurer with respect to a complaint was changed in some respect by the ombud with some additional benefit to the insured.<\/p>\n A high overturn rate indicates that an insurer may be treating clients unfairly \u2013 but the ombudsman noted that it is not always the case.<\/p>\n \u201cA\u00a0high overturn rate can also be indicative of a high degree of co-operation being received by the Ombudsman\u2019s office from a particular insurer in resolving a complaint to the satisfaction of the customer,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n This is how major insurers performed:<\/p>\n Measuring by the highest number of complaints received per 1000 claims, these are the 15 most complained about insurers.<\/p>\n *Includes run-off.<\/em><\/p>\n The tables below outlines the full dataset for South Africa\u2019s short-term insurers:<\/p>\n\n
\n\n
\n Insurer<\/th>\n Complaints per 1000<\/th>\n Claims received<\/th>\n Share of claims received<\/th>\n Complaints received<\/th>\n Share of complaints received<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n \n Lion of Africa*<\/td>\n 108.57<\/td>\n 746<\/td>\n 0.02%<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n 0.91%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Lloyd’s<\/td>\n 17.14<\/td>\n 175<\/td>\n 0.00%<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n 0.03%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n New National<\/td>\n 11.61<\/td>\n 21 529<\/td>\n 0.61%<\/td>\n 250<\/td>\n 2.82%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Absa<\/td>\n 5.92<\/td>\n 134 943<\/td>\n 3.84%<\/td>\n 799<\/td>\n 9.02%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Oakhurst<\/td>\n 5.70<\/td>\n 51 372<\/td>\n 1.46%<\/td>\n 293<\/td>\n 3.31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Santam Structured<\/td>\n 5.60<\/td>\n 41 599<\/td>\n 1.18%<\/td>\n 233<\/td>\n 2.63%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n King Price<\/td>\n 5.27<\/td>\n 81 146<\/td>\n 2.31%<\/td>\n 428<\/td>\n 4.83%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n MiWay<\/td>\n 4.83<\/td>\n 100 081<\/td>\n 2.85%<\/td>\n 484<\/td>\n 5.46%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Standard<\/td>\n 4.75<\/td>\n 115 536<\/td>\n 3.29%<\/td>\n 549<\/td>\n 6.20%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Chubb<\/td>\n 4.71<\/td>\n 1 486<\/td>\n 0.04%<\/td>\n 7<\/td>\n 0.08%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Western National<\/td>\n 4.53<\/td>\n 23 796<\/td>\n 0.68%<\/td>\n 108<\/td>\n 1.22%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nedgroup<\/td>\n 4.47<\/td>\n 67 045<\/td>\n 1.91%<\/td>\n 300<\/td>\n 3.39%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Allianz<\/td>\n 4.41<\/td>\n 453<\/td>\n 0.01%<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 0.02%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Centriq<\/td>\n 4.16<\/td>\n 35 082<\/td>\n 1.00%<\/td>\n 146<\/td>\n 1.65%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Budget<\/td>\n 4.04<\/td>\n 79 889<\/td>\n 2.27%<\/td>\n 323<\/td>\n 3.65%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n<\/div>\n