A Cape Town woman has secured a victory against Standard Bank in her insurance claim for storm damage to her heritage home, but the bank is appealing the decision.
Image: AI / RON
An insurance claim victory against Standard Bank will be taken on appeal after the bank indicated it will take the Appeal Tribunal's decision on review.
This comes after a Cape Town woman secured the victory against Standard Insurance Ltd after a two-and-a-half year battle over storm damage to her 130-year-old heritage home.
The bank argued that her insurance claim was rejected due to wear and tear, which they said was to blame for the damage.
However, despite a finding made against them, Standard has failed to make payment to her despite the deadline for payment - February 27, 2026 - having elapsed.
The bank, through its spokesperson Ross Linstrom, said it would be taking the matter on appeal at the National Financial Ombud (NFO).
“Following (the initial) assessment, the insurer settled the claim for the damage attributable to the storm. However, the remaining portion of the roof was found to have extensive termite damage, which falls outside the scope of cover under the policy.
“The NFO initially reviewed the matter and agreed with the insurer’s findings. The insured then requested that the matter be escalated to the Ombud’s escalation committee, which again upheld the insurer’s position. The complainant subsequently requested that the matter be reviewed, and a ruling was issued against the insurer. Standard Insurance Limited has appealed that ruling, and the matter is therefore still under review by the NFO. The insured’s attorney has been informed of this process.”
Linstrom said that as the matter remains under review, they would not comment further at this stage.
The woman, who prefers to remain anonymous, recounted that her ordeal started when a storm with winds of 142 km/h ripped through Woodstock at midnight on Heritage Day 2023.
The wind tore off a portion of the roof over her bedroom, and as the rain poured in, it threatened the wooden floors of the 130-year old double-storey.
“I contacted the insurance company, Standard Insurance Limited, the next morning, but due to so many claims being reported, the assessor only arrived eight days later, after I had followed up many times, even escalating it to the CEO of Standard Bank.
“By that time, I already had to call out a contractor at my own expense to put up a temporary covering. While I was waiting for the assessor, a second storm caused extensive additional damage, with the water running down my wooden stairs and pooling on top of the metal pressed ceiling on the ground floor. I had to remove most of the furniture and put it into storage at a total cost of R23,787.00, which formed part of my claim,” the insured said.
The total damage suffered by the insured due to the storm was R363,178.25. Standard Insurance Ltd only paid R228,408 for the replacement of the roof and R23,797 for emergency repairs and storage costs.
Standard Insurance Limited, initially supported by the financial ombud, rejected the balance of R110,982.24 on the grounds that the policy did not cover damages arising from wear and tear.
The insured submitted her claim to Standard Insurance Limited, but Standard paid only a portion of the roof repairs and limited their emergency repairs compensation to R2,000, despite their inaction having caused the majority of the harm, the insured’s attorney, Trudie Broekmann, an expert in consumer law, said.
“This was compounded by the shoddy work done by the insurer’s roofing contractor, which had to be replaced when the insured had proper repairs done. Standard Insurance Ltd based its refusal to pay for the entire roof replacement on a report by Johannesburg structural engineer Mashaba, who did not inspect the roof directly. Yet, he concluded that termites and wear and tear were the true causes of the damage. Termites don’t occur in urban areas in the Western Cape,” said Broekmann.
The insured escalated her claim within Standard Insurance in May 2024. A small additional amount was paid out for emergency repairs, but the bulk of her claim remained unpaid.
The insured commented: “It is profoundly troubling that an insurer which has, according to the admission of its own assessor, repeatedly failed an insured, resulting in the lasting loss of property value, considers itself not only beyond the bounds of industry norms, but the law itself.”
Broekmann said: “Many South African consumers are unhappy with their claims against insurance being rejected for invalid reasons. This judgment shows that there is hope for such disgruntled consumers. But you need to be ready to play a long game.”
For more information, you can find the NFO’s rules here or to submit a complaint or lodge your claim here.
chevon.booysen@inl.co.za