Car jamming scams have resulted in an increase in the number of fraudulent claims being made to insurance companies.
Insurance companies find it difficult to prove whether such claims are valid.
This is according to Nazeer Hoosen, executive director at PPS short term-insurance, who said they were getting a number of claims that were very suspicious.
In one instance, he said, a woman claimed that she lost her bag worth R20 000, a laptop, a cellphone, about R3 000 in cash and an iPad when she allegedly fell victim to car jamming.
Car jamming refers to when criminals use a remote device operating on the same frequency as your car’s remote locking system prevents you from locking your vehicle by pressing their device as you try to lock it at the same time you activate your device.
Another client claimed to have lost two laptops and two cellphones that were in the car through a similar modus operandi.
“We are not saying that it’s not possible that the above-mentioned incidents could have happened, but sometimes you tend to doubt. However, we are not in the business of interrogating customers. We ask them reasonable questions and take everything at face value.
“But about 60 percent of claims have been repudiated by us due to a lack of corroboration from an independent source.
“Ultimately, our premiums will increase if these incidents increase. If claims get to the point where we are unable to settle them from the premiums we collect, the premiums will go up,” he said.
But Nazeer said they considered a claim only under three circumstances.
If there is CCTV camera footage, if an independent third party witnessed the theft and if any of the items stolen in the car were found in someone else’s possession.
“We have to stick to our terms and conditions of our policy as this will deter people from being negligent and will also make them more cautious,” Nazeer said.
The ombudsman for short-term insurance has ruled that if clients were to suffer any loss due to the remote jamming scam, their claims would be rejected because they are supposed to check whether their cars were locked first before walking away.
The ombudsman stated that motorists should not assume that their cars were locked merely because they pushed a button.
“This type of loss would be rejected because cover for items in vehicles is subject to forcible and violent entry into the vehicles. If there is no forcible and violent entry into the vehicle, there is unfortunately no claim. We are not in favour of relaxing our underwriting rules on something that can result in frequent losses for something where reasonable precaution should be taken.”
Santam spokesman Donald Kau said they warned their clients and motorists in general to double-check that their vehicles were locked after they have pressed the immobiliser button early last year when they became aware of incidents of car jamming.
“Some insurance policies specify that items need to be locked in the boot when unattended. Santam provides optional cover for claims on stolen groceries and household goods from cars. The car, however, needs to have been locked at the time of the theft.” - The Star