Johannesburg - A female homeowner has accused her insurance company, which claims to put women first, of cheating her.
Lauren Murgeas, 34, who has been insured with 1st for Women Insurance since 2014, has expressed her disappointment at receiving only R30 000 for a claim despite being covered for R141 200. The claim was for household valuables snatched in a house robbery in January.
“I reported the incident on January 24 and made the claim - I did not hear anything from them for two weeks. I eventually started phoning to find out what was happening.
“The consultant who was assisting me at the time was then removed from the claim and someone else had to assist me - a senior consultant who also took time to get back to me,” said Murgeas.
She said a consultant eventually made contact and agreed to visit her Klipspruit property to conduct an insurance inventory.
“We counted the stolen items in the house in order to get the prices. I told her that I had bought some of the items two years ago - so I wasn't sure of the exact prices.
"She told me to estimate the prices and said the costing form was not final and I should just sign it.”
Some of the items included a collection of watches, a wedding ring, perfumes, shoes, clothing, and a TV, which was found by police smashed in the veld the next day.
“I am not after the R141 000 I just want them to meet me halfway, as my ring on its own cost R13 000.
“From 2014 until now I have never missed a single payment,” said Murgeas, who worked for the insurer’s claims department for five years until 2017.
Seugnette van Wyngaard, head of 1st for Women, said the amount paid was in accordance with how much Murgeas was insured for and that she was under-insured, which occurred when there was a shortfall between the amount of cover and the replacement value of what was insured.
“If you claim, we will calculate the replacement value for which you should have insured your home contents. If you insured them for less than that, we will only pay a proportionate amount,” said Van Wyngaard.
She said the settlement was reasonable, given that Murgeas was 59% under-insured.