Storm over, who pays for the wall?
For some, relief will be followed by the blow of a rejected claim and a hefty excess increase
For most, insurance is a grudge purchase until the day disaster strikes, as it did with last week's two major storms in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. For some, though, relief will be followed by the blow of a rejected claim and a hefty excess increase. Claims for collapsed boundary or retaining walls are often repudiated by insurers on the grounds that there were defects in their design, materials or construction, or that they weren't maintained - kept free of a heavy creeper, for example - and gradually became compromised. "We see a large number of cases in our office where a claim is rejected on the grounds that a boundary or retaining wall was inadequately constructed or inadequately maintained," says short-term insurance ombud Deanne Wood. "Policyholders argue that the wall would not have collapsed but for the storm and, as storm damage is covered, the insurer is liable for the loss. "On the face of it this may be true, but if an insurer is able to show that the wall would, on a ba...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.