Solomon Majaho’s 2016 Opel Astra had been insured with Budget Insurance for just six months when it was involved in an accident. That was in May, and the accident repair estimate was more than R100,000.
But the claim was rejected, because he was deemed to have been untruthful when answering a question posed by the Budget telesales agent who had called him to sell him a policy.
Majaho, of Midrand, had been with King Price for just three months when he got that out-of-the-blue marketing call, as a result of which he agreed to make the move to Budget.
It was a decision he regretted after his accident six months later.
Halfway through that 14-minute Budget sales call, he was quizzed about his insurance history. That Q&A went like this:
Do you have any comprehensive car insurance where you are noted as the regular driver?
Yes.
Over how many uninterrupted years have you been covered?
With this car and this insurance, it would be ... three months now.
With this question, it doesn’t matter which car or which insurance company. We are asking for you as the regular driver, how long have you been covered under comprehensive car insurance, continuously?
Continuously? Four years.
Have you ever had a claim for accident or theft of vehicle before?
No.
The answers I provided were based on my understanding of the question and the salesperson never advised me properly as to exactly what they wanted
— Solomon Majaho
In the 12 months up to August last year, when he bought the Astra, Majaho did not have a car, so he had no need for insurance. But before that he had had uninterrupted insurance for four years, so he believed he was answering the question truthfully.
“2017 to 2021 is a continuous four years. After that I sold my car and only bought my Astra in August 2022, which is when I took out the policy with King Price. Now they tell me that because I didn’t mention the one-year break, they cannot assist me.
“But you can clearly hear in the recording that the answers I provided were based on my understanding of the question and the salesperson never advised me properly as to exactly what they wanted,” Majaho told me.
“After the salesperson told me that it did not matter about the insurance or the car, in my mind he wanted to know the number of years I had driven with comprehensive insurance continuously.
“To me from 2017-2021 was continuous, hence I replied to the question as I did. Why am I being punished for answering a question according to my understanding?”
Having listened to the recording, I had to agree the Budget agent didn’t do enough to ensure there was no misunderstanding, especially in light of the fact a “wrong” answer leads to claim rejection.
If he intended to deceive, Majaho’s initial answer would surely not have been “three months”.
Another reason this question should be very carefully worded, and expressed in several ways, is that many people gave up their cars and their insurance policies during the Covid-19 years, creating that “break”, which affects premiums.
Before his break of 12 months, Majaho did have continuous motor insurance for a period of four years, thus he believed he was answering the question truthfully.
I put it to Budget Insurance that while it could be argued the question was in the present tense — “How long have you been covered under comprehensive car insurance, continuously?” — such nuance is easily lost on a second-language English speaker.
For that crucial question to be completely understood, with no possibility for misunderstanding, it should rather be phrased: “For how long have you had uninterrupted comprehensive insurance cover counting back from today?” or words to that effect.
And when the client provides the answer, there should be a follow-up question: “And you had no breaks after that?”
I asked if the company was willing to reconsider its rejection of Majaho’s claim, and whether it agreed the line of questioning on insurance history should be reworded.
Happily, it was a “yes” on both counts.
“In this instance, we are happy to give Mr Majaho the benefit of the doubt and reconsider our initial stance. We will contact him to discuss and confirm,” Budget said.
In this instance, we are happy to give Mr Majaho the benefit of the doubt and reconsider our initial stance. We will contact him to discuss and confirm
— Budget Insurance
“And yes, yes, we are reviewing our scripting.”
Mahajo said his monthly premium of R871 had now been increased to R1,170 and the approved claim of R101,700 was to be slightly adjusted to account for the higher premium he ought to have been paying, based on his insurance history, since November.
I have a keen interest in the wording of telesales scripts and the misunderstandings it can create, often intentionally.
A big bone of contention is the way cellphone contracts are sold over the phone. So many people agree to a deal, assuming it’s an upgrade or a sweeter deal on their existing contract, when, in fact, it’s an entirely separate, second contract.
One marketing company’s sales manager once pointed out to me, when I took up such a case, that the agent in question had used the word “additional” twice during the call, but conceded the fact that an entirely new contract was being sold was not made abundantly clear.
If such companies really didn’t want there to be any confusion around this, the scripts would read something like: “Please understand this will be a new contract, completely separate from your current one, so you will end up with two cellphone contracts, two phones, and two invoiced amounts to pay every month.”
Yes, and pigs might fly.
• Contact Knowler for advice with your consumer issues via email: consumer@knowler.co.za or on Twitter: @wendyknowler
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
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.