Discovery Insure and My Poor F30

[325iSmk2]

You gotta be pretty hammered to drive a car like that. Was it a "I just wanna get to bed I'll deal with this tomorrow" kind of thing?

 

[Jacques668866]

Hi. I did not read through the whole tread...

Check your Discovery Insure plan guide. Point 3.8. Page 4...

"We will not use your DQ track data for the purpose of approving claims."

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[lebofa]

Hi. I did not read through the whole tread...

Check your Discovery Insure plan guide. Point 3.8. Page 4...

"We will not use your DQ track data for the purpose of approving claims."

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

they just did :hammerhead:

 

[Jacques668866]

If that is the case. I am changing insurance.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[zippy320]

What is hard acceleration and harsh breaking and harsh cornering exactly ?

 

[lebofa]

What is hard acceleration and harsh breaking and harsh cornering exactly ?

that is when you are having fun and actually enjoying the car :tiptoe:

 

[Quick///M]

Bud PM me your details let me escalate this for you.

 

[telegamer]

I contacted Discovery to insure three of my cars, they demanded a tracker be fitted in two of them, both M cars, the other an E92 non M car they never bothered with, and their premiums were way higher than Santam's....I politely said good bye

 

[TurboLlew]

What is hard acceleration and harsh breaking and harsh cornering exactly ?

that is when you are having fun and actually enjoying the car :tiptoe:

My Netstar report shows harsh acceleration in many 'normal' circumstances because that is just how the car accelerates. Relative to some kind of definition in their system for meters/seconds covered from v=0 the car accelerates 'harshly'. I wonder what it would make of GT-R launch control? Your grandma's definition of 'harsh acceleration' relative to Sebastian Vettel's is likely to be different - it is a pointless definition out of context. I remember being amused when I first saw the report. The original reason for these was to monitor commercial vehicles. We are now using them as 'accident reconstruction' tools and a tool for rewarding 'good' driving (also not exactly something that can be defined easily) which is not what they should be used for at all. Just my 2c

---

I contacted Discovery to insure three of my cars, they demanded a tracker be fitted in two of them, both M cars, the other an E92 non M car they never bothered with, and their premiums were way higher than Santam's....I politely said good bye

I am with Sela brokers underwritten by Hollard. Tracker was not a requirement (Didn't have one in my STI) but my M5 came with one so used it. It is purely for theft and they have never requested telemetry for any car.

Discovery is a scummy company in my experience which I've mentioned before. There is literally no way I will ever purchase any product from them ever again. The fact that they are reneging on contractual terms is worrying and has cemented this view. Big brother in action. There are any one of a number of other ways they could have investigated this using CCTV or the interviewing of staff in the area. Instead they chose to violate a contractual term which is now being discussed here publicly. This device was fitted for one stated purpose. They then go on to explicitly state it would not be used to deny a claim... and then we have this... Really trustworthy company right?

---

I feel reasonably confident to say this. Discovery have investigated the claim. Thoroughly. They have found something to embolden them sufficiently to repudiate the claim. I hope for the OP's sake I am wrong for reasons previously stated.

I said it in an earlier post. Underwriters don't repudiate claims flippantly because they know its likely to end up with the Ombudsman or in litigation particularly when the amounts involved are substantial.

I tend to agree... but the circumstances around how this seems to have gone down should make any Discovery client worried

 

[Kimeran]

I would just like to clear this up...
Did Discovery pull the reports and tell you "This is why we are not paying your claim."
Or did they get the surveillance footage and tell you that is why they aren't paying your claim?

 

[zippy320]

Thats Exactly why I asked the question, on hard acceleration and harsh breaking and harsh cornering, We have one of these netstar fitted on our F30 of which I use to track on my phone , and its forever stating , harsh braking , acceleration and if you click on behavior , the ratings are off the charts , impacts stay at 100% . And I know for a fact that this car is not driven harshly at all , looking at its trip log , it rarely if ever goes over the speed limit .

So it now seems that this system like the one in his car isn't reliable for that purpose , How can an insurance repudiate a claim based on a system that's potentially flawed ? How is that Legal ?

This worries me a little now as well . We were told to fit a tracker to all of our cars and non of them are M cars .

What is hard acceleration and harsh breaking and harsh cornering exactly ?

that is when you are having fun and actually enjoying the car :tiptoe:

My Netstar report shows harsh acceleration in many 'normal' circumstances because that is just how the car accelerates. Relative to some kind of definition in their system for meters/seconds covered from v=0 the car accelerates 'harshly'. I wonder what it would make of GT-R launch control? Your grandma's definition of 'harsh acceleration' relative to Sebastian Vettel's is likely to be different - it is a pointless definition out of context. I remember being amused when I first saw the report. The original reason for these was to monitor commercial vehicles. We are now using them as 'accident reconstruction' tools and a tool for rewarding 'good' driving (also not exactly something that can be defined easily) which is not what they should be used for at all. Just my 2c

---

I contacted Discovery to insure three of my cars, they demanded a tracker be fitted in two of them, both M cars, the other an E92 non M car they never bothered with, and their premiums were way higher than Santam's....I politely said good bye

I am with Sela brokers underwritten by Hollard. Tracker was not a requirement (Didn't have one in my STI) but my M5 came with one so used it. It is purely for theft and they have never requested telemetry for any car.

Discovery is a scummy company in my experience which I've mentioned before. There is literally no way I will ever purchase any product from them ever again. The fact that they are reneging on contractual terms is worrying and has cemented this view. Big brother in action. There are any one of a number of other ways they could have investigated this using CCTV or the interviewing of staff in the area. Instead they chose to violate a contractual term which is now being discussed here publicly. This device was fitted for one stated purpose. They then go on to explicitly state it would not be used to deny a claim... and then we have this... Really trustworthy company right?

---

I feel reasonably confident to say this. Discovery have investigated the claim. Thoroughly. They have found something to embolden them sufficiently to repudiate the claim. I hope for the OP's sake I am wrong for reasons previously stated.

I said it in an earlier post. Underwriters don't repudiate claims flippantly because they know its likely to end up with the Ombudsman or in litigation particularly when the amounts involved are substantial.

I tend to agree... but the circumstances around how this seems to have gone down should make any Discovery client worried

---

---

 

[Gizmo]

If you have Tracker Retrieve you have nothing to worry about as it is only activated when the car is reported stolen/hijacked. Tracker send a signal to it and then it starts transmitting a beacon.

 

[Gizmo]

Discovery use one that is constantly transmitting and can tell u where your car is in real time.

 

[TurboLlew]

it looks like miway also does the same thing, if you have a tracking device fitted in your car, they use the information from the tracking company to pay-out or decline. If at the time of the accident you were over the speed limit, they will not pay out :smashScreen:

Why anybody is with these con artists, I honestly don't know. They resort to borderline illegal tactics to repudiate claims. They are here on this forum watching for all the okes posting about their mods and TLGPs, waiting to use that against them in a claim. They denied a HAIL claim on a car because there were facebook pics of the owner using the car at a track day... Even if they might pay in the end, it is not without a lot of stress and fighting - prepare to stand on your head. Anyone with MiWay should just leave immediately - even for R100-200/month more.

 

[Sabretooth tiger]

it looks like miway also does the same thing, if you have a tracking device fitted in your car, they use the information from the tracking company to pay-out or decline. If at the time of the accident you were over the speed limit, they will not pay out :smashScreen:

Why anybody is with these con artists, I honestly don't know. They resort to borderline illegal tactics to repudiate claims. They are here on this forum watching for all the okes posting about their mods and TLGPs, waiting to use that against them in a claim. They denied a HAIL claim on a car because there were facebook pics of the owner using the car at a track day... Even if they might pay in the end, it is not without a lot of stress and fighting - prepare to stand on your head. Anyone with MiWay should just leave immediately - even for R100-200/month more.

+1

They even refused to pay out my wife's cellphone, yes you read right, a mere R8 000 phone. This after they had the video footage of the shop, testimony of the shop assistants and the case number. I had to resort to threatening them with legal action, for them to finally pay out.
MIWAY is proper con artists, and down right criminals.

 

[skiet]

Looks to be a pricey brandewyn vlek :tiptoe:

 

[Neil.R]

Hello Kaboose,

Sorry for only replying to this thread now. Would you be able to send me your contact details.

I work with Discovery everyday and can't think why they declined the claim.

Would like to help where I can.

Regards,

Neil

 

[WIDEOPN-X5]

Makes sense what Coisman said, never knew they can come off like that.

See in this pic, from where the marks on the road starts, seems like there was something lying in the road, that could also have damaged your tire. (almost rectangular mark on the road surface, right in the bend)


My 2 cents, If the tyre came off the rim prior to hitting the pavement, we would have clearly been able to see the two scraping lines of the rim sides on the road.

Would just like to point something out in regard to the picture of the road surface and the picture of the rim.

If the scrape marks on the road were the result of the rim scraping on the road "when the tyre came off the rim" then the outer circumference of the rim would be scored all the way around. It isn't.

PS: BELOW I REFER TO ARROWS - I cant upload the image I worked on as it keep saying "image file missing"

Secondly, the scrape marks on the road (red arrows) that appear to run perpendicular to the long sweeping mark (between the blue arrows) could easily be caused by small stones being "scrubbed" under a tyre which is slipping in understeer across the tar. The "scrubbing" is what is seen in the long arc between the blue arrows.

There are other arcing marks on the road surface which I don't think have anything to do with this accident.

OP has not advised when these photos were taken. Next morning? A day or 2 later? I suspect late the next morning / early afternoon based on the shadows (or lack thereof off the pavement and the also from the tree in the background. I can't get down to road surface on Google Maps to confirm this so it is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Coisman]

Makes sense what Coisman said, never knew they can come off like that.

See in this pic, from where the marks on the road starts, seems like there was something lying in the road, that could also have damaged your tire. (almost rectangular mark on the road surface, right in the bend)


My 2 cents, If the tyre came off the rim prior to hitting the pavement, we would have clearly been able to see the two scraping lines of the rim sides on the road.

Would just like to point something out in regard to the picture of the road surface and the picture of the rim.

If the scrape marks on the road were the result of the rim scraping on the road "when the tyre came off the rim" then the outer circumference of the rim would be scored all the way around. It isn't.

PS: BELOW I REFER TO ARROWS - I cant upload the image I worked on as it keep saying "image file missing"

Secondly, the scrape marks on the road (red arrows) that appear to run perpendicular to the long sweeping mark (between the blue arrows) could easily be caused by small stones being "scrubbed" under a tyre which is slipping in understeer across the tar. The "scrubbing" is what is seen in the long arc between the blue arrows.

There are other arcing marks on the road surface which I don't think have anything to do with this accident.

OP has not advised when these photos were taken. Next morning? A day or 2 later? I suspect late the next morning / early afternoon based on the shadows (or lack thereof off the pavement and the also from the tree in the background. I can't get down to road surface on Google Maps to confirm this so it is pure speculation on my part.

Not if he was hitting the brakes, or the ABS and EBD unit was braking the wheel in order to try and restore control, then the rim would not be rotating and thus be bouncing along the roadway, causing the marks in question.

Like I stated before...the tyre might not have left the rim, but merely pulled so far to the side, that the rim contacted the roadway.

Afterwards, especially cause its runflat tyres, the firewall and the design of the tyre would cause the tyre to go back to the position it was in on the rim.


Look... ALLOT can be speculated as to what happened, but again I say, I was not on the scene, I am merely going by my 23 years experience.

Love you all. :blowheart:

 

[Luis Malhou]

I will not use a Medical Company for a car insurance. I've been with Santam for years and never had a problem with a claim, 2 ..3 days and claims are sorted through my broker. Discover approached me with lower premium because of my Med Aid and Life Policies with them, the minute they started with the tracker story I told them to jump. What happens if I was reckless and my car claim is rejected, and suddenly decide that they will reject my medical claim too.. same company. It can happen! Or if I get killed in an accident and they deny life payout becz I was negligent.. no thanks!