FAIS Ombud Upholds Complaint Against Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers CC in Favour of Dr. Luzanne de Beer

In a determination under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act), the FAIS Ombud ruled in favour of Dr. Luzanne de Beer against Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers CC (FSP No. 11837) located in Brits.

Dr. Luzanne de Beer purchased a Toyota Land Cruiser 76 4.2D on 5 February 2016, and added it to her insurance policy obtained through Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers, acting as her broker. The policy was provided by Quicksure, underwritten by Old Mutual Insure.

On 30 July 2018, Dr. de Beer's vehicle was stolen from her place of employment, prompting a claim submission to Quicksure for R312,400.00. The insurer rejected the claim on 17 August 2018, citing that a satellite early warning device was not installed in the vehicle, as required by the policy. The Respondent claimed Dr. de Beer was informed of the requirement and signed the policy documents.

The Complainant submitted that Badie Jacobs Insurance Brokers did not adequately inform her of the specific requirement.

Upon investigation, the Respondent could not produce evidence of the record of advice reflecting any discussion with the complainant regarding the satellite tracking device. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant did not pay sufficient attention to the policy schedule and did not read a letter sent to her regarding the requirement.

As outlined in Section 7(1)(a) of the General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (“the Code”), the Respondent was obligated to fulfill their duty to “….provide a reasonable and appropriate general explanation of the nature and material terms of the relevant contract or transaction to a client, and generally make full and frank disclosure of any information that would reasonably be expected to enable the client to make an informed decision.”

Furthermore, as per Section 7(1)(c)(vii) of the Code, a provider is mandated to furnish reasonable and appropriate information regarding “……. any special terms or conditions, exclusions of liability, waiting periods, loadings, penalties, excesses, restrictions, or circumstances in which benefits will not be provided.”

Additionally, Section 9(1) of the Code stipulates that “A provider must, subject to and in addition to the duties imposed by section 18 of the Act and section 3 (2) of this Code, maintain a record of the advice furnished to a client as contemplated in section 8, which record must reflect the basis on which the advice was given…”.

After assessing the evidence, the FAIS Ombud found that the Respondent failed to provide sufficient information to the Complainant regarding the requirement for a satellite device. The Ombud ordered the Respondent to pay Dr. Luzanne de Beer the amount of R301,466.00, plus interest at a rate of 11.75% per annum from the date of the determination to the date of the final payment.

The period in which the Respondent could apply to the Financial Services Tribunal for a reconsideration of the determination has expired. The determination will now be filed with the relevant court as an order.

Access full determination here…

Should you believe that you have been financially prejudiced because of the financial service rendered to you in respect of a regulated financial product, then you can visit our Complaints Portal at www.faisombud.co.za and select ‘Lodge Complaint’. Alternatively, you may submit a complaint in writing to [email protected]. You can also call our Client Care Centre at (012) 762 5000 or Sharecall at 086 066 3274 for assistance in submitting a complaint.