Guardrisk

Hidden Excesses, Strict Forfeiture & Broad Clauses – Is This Device Insurance Designed to Pay Out I am lodging this public warning after carefully analysing my device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited. Having reviewed the policy wording against the FAIS Act, Policyholder Protection Rules (PPRs), and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles, I have serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and fairness of certain provisions. 1. Excess Structure – Potentially Misleading Cost-to-Benefit Ratio The policy imposes: 25% excess on all claims Additional 15% excess if claim occurs within 60 days This results in a 40% deduction from claim value for early claims. 2. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy states that failure to: Report within 30 days, OR Submit documents within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of benefits. This is an extremely strict condition precedent to liability. Under the Policyholder Protection Rules, terms must not be unreasonable, unjust, or unfair. An automatic and absolute forfeiture without consideration of prejudice to the insurer raises proportionality concerns. 3. Broad Discretionary Powers The insurer reserves sole discretion to: Determine whether repair, replacement, or cash settlement applies Determine “market value” Determine whether risk is “unacceptable” Decide if precautions were sufficient The “Unacceptable Risk” clause is particularly concerning, as it allows subjective assessment based on “past claims experience” without objective thresholds. This creates a material imbalance in rights and obligations between insurer and policyholder. 4. Overly Broad “Reasonable Precautions” & Safeguarding Clauses The policy requires the device to: Not be left in a public place Be safeguarded at all times Be locked away when not in use These clauses are so broadly drafted that almost any theft scenario could potentially be challenged. In practice, this may allow repudiation based on interpretation rather than actual negligence. 5. Mysterious Loss Exclusion – Evidentiary Burden on Insured The exclusion of “mysterious or unexplained loss” places a heavy burden on the insured to prove detailed circumstances of theft. In real-world ******* scenarios, victims may not be able to provide precise details. This exclusion can operate harshly against genuine claimants. 6. Average Clause & Underinsurance Risk The inclusion of an average clause means that if the insured value is less than replacement cost, the insured must carry part of the loss. 7. Commission & Binder Fee Structure The schedule reflects: 20% commission 9% binder fee Nearly 29% of the premium goes to distribution and administration before risk cost. Regulatory Considerations Under FAIS and TCF: Material terms must be disclosed clearly and prominently. Products must be appropriate for target market. Claims processes must not create unreasonable post-sale barriers. Terms must not create unfair contractual imbalance. The cumulative effect of: High excess, Strict forfeiture, Broad discretionary clauses, Extensive exclusions, raises legitimate questions regarding alignment with TCF Outcomes 1, 3, and 6. Advice to Consumers Before taking this policy: Request full policy wording in advance. Calculate real payout after excess. Ask how “market value” is determined. Ask for written confirmation of documentation deadlines. Understand the impact of early claims. Low premiums can be attractive, but the true test of insurance is how it performs at claim stage. Consumers should approach with caution and fully interrogate the fine print. If unresolved disputes arise, consumers may escalate to: National Financial Ombud Office of the FAIS Ombud Transparency and fairness are not optional in financial services — they are regulatory obligations.

Disgraceful Claims Handling, Zero Common Sense, Absolute Waste of Time I am utterly disgusted with the service I’ve received from *Guardrisk Insurance*, with *Ooba Insure* acting as the broker. This has been one of the most frustrating and insulting customer experiences I’ve ever had. We moved into our property in *February 2025*. Throughout the year, we had plenty of rain with *no issues whatsoever*. On *5 December*, we experienced a *severe hailstorm with heavy rain*, which caused damage to our *outbuilding roof*, leading to *internal roof damage and damaged kitchen cupboards*. We logged the claim *immediately in December*, doing the responsible thing so that we wouldn’t later be accused of reporting it late. From the start, we understood that the *outside roof needed to be repaired first*. When the inspector visited, my wife clearly explained that we intended to fix the roof—but that *December rainfall was constant* and *most contractors shut down from mid-December*, making repairs impossible until January. This was communicated clearly and honestly. Despite this, on *19 December*, Guardrisk rejected the claim because the outside roof had not yet been repaired. Apparently, Guardrisk expects policyholders to *repair roofs during continuous rainfall*, leave buildings exposed, and risk further damage and theft—because logic clearly does not apply here. In early January, repairs were still impossible due to rain. During the *second week of January*, Guardrisk told us that *once the roof was repaired, the internal claim would be approved*. Acting on this instruction, we *purchased materials* and arranged repairs for this coming weekend. Then comes the final insult. Today, a Guardrisk representative called me and spoke to me in a *condescending, dismissive, and arrogant manner*, asking if I even understood “how claims work.” After explaining the situation more than once—and pointing out that I had already been advised by another Guardrisk employee to proceed with repairs—she simply stated that the claim was *rejected and will not be approved*, completely contradicting previous communication. This is not just poor service—it’s *incompetence*, *contradictory advice*, and *complete disregard for customers*. I own *more than one property*, and I can assure you that if this is not resolved, *every single policy will be moved elsewhere*. I should have trusted my instincts and avoided this insurer from the start. Giving Guardrisk and Ooba Insure the benefit of the doubt was a mistake, and I am disappointed in myself for doing so. If you are considering insurance with Guardrisk or through Ooba Insure, *think very carefully*. When you actually need help, you will be met with excuses, shifting goalposts, and staff who treat you like an inconvenience rather than a paying client. *Absolutely unacceptable. Avoid if you value your time, money, and sanity.* Morne Els

hi, sad to have to say my wife and I do not have mutch and we tried to protect the little we have by taking out insurance for the financed amount of the car she bought. we thought if she lost her job (no matter by dying or not being able to work anymore) as she got a brain tumar and is now unable to work anymore there is no recovery and myself and my 2 kids had to go and say our good bays now with a sad heart the agent under supervision just say she is only covered for being retrenched or dead thats it..... so now we will also loos the car as she has not died yet been paying the insurence now for 4 year never missing a payment but when we need them no can do... sad

I have never heard of this company before and they're debiting monthly from my account. I am struggling to end/ block this debit order. Such a scam.

If I could give zero stars, I would. Guardrisk has been debiting my account without my consent — I never signed up for any of their products or services. Judging by other reviews, I’m far from the only one experiencing this problem. Two months ago, I filled in their contact form to query the charges and instructed them to cancel immediately. Despite this, the debits continue, month after month. No transparency, no explanation, no accountability. This feels less like an insurance company and more like a systematic abuse of consumer trust. It should not be this difficult to stop an unauthorized debit. Until Guardrisk addresses these complaints and stops these practices, I would strongly advise anyone to avoid them completely.

THE WORST experience with Guardrisk & We Buy Cars. They owe my husband and I R9000.00 and nobody is taking responsibility to sort it out. I will never use Guardrisk (or WBC again).

So this morning a debt order went of my account from gaurdrisk I followed up with them and the claimed I approved it I went to my bank and there was no Debi check done on my account so they assentialy stole money out of my account few hours later struggling to get my money back in my account

Concent was rejected to create a debit mandate on my account, however they still proceeded to create the debit order and I have not been able to cancel it even though I made it very clear that I do not want to use or pay for any of their services. Do not trust. I hope the government pops by and does the necessary inspection. PS- I'd give 0 stars but that isn't an option.

Withdrew money from my account without my consent or with me even asking to join their policy. I never contacted anyone from this organisation regarding any policy, yet they deemed it fit to take money. This entire organisation is a bunch of thieves. I tried contacting their suppor. None of their numbers even work, and when you do get into contact with someone, they are rude over phone (obv trained to frustrate you as much as possible as to minimise them having to deal with your query) The best solution would be to visit your banking branch direct(Anyone that has the same issue)

Absolutely enjoyed my time here... Very engaging and informative conference!! Surroundings are to die for. Traffic, not too good if you're in a hurry!