A Cape Town homeowner secures a landmark victory against Standard Insurance after a prolonged battle over storm damage, highlighting the importance of persistence in insurance claims.
Image: File
A Cape Town homeowner has won a landmark victory against Standard Insurance Ltd after a two-and-a-half year battle over storm damage to her 130-year-old heritage home. The appeal tribunal of the National Financial Ombud ruled in her favour last month, but according to the complainant, Standard Insurance has yet to comply with the order to pay the outstanding claim, despite the deadline of February 27, 2026, having passed.
The ordeal began on Heritage Day in 2023, when winds of 142 km/h tore through Woodstock at midnight, blowing off the roof above her bedroom. Roof sheets landed a block away in a neighbour’s yard, while rain poured into the double-storey home, threatening its wooden floors.
“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,” the insured, who prefers to remain anonymous, says.
By then, she says, she had already paid for a contractor to install temporary coverings. A second storm struck before the assessor arrived, causing further damage as water ran down her wooden stairs and pooled on the pressed metal ceiling. “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,” she says.
Standard Insurance paid only a portion of the roof repairs and limited emergency compensation to R2000, despite delays that worsened the damage.
The homeowner says she escalated her claim in May 2024, receiving a small additional payout but not the full amount. With the help of attorney Trudie Broekmann, an expert in consumer law, she approached the National Financial Ombud in September 2024. Adjudicator Brian Mukoki provisionally rejected her claim in September 2025, but she persisted, eventually securing a final adjudication in October 2025.
Judge Robert Nugent later granted leave to appeal, describing Standard’s refusal to pay for the full roof replacement as “puzzling.” He noted: “Had the allegedly compromised timber been the cause of the damage, one would expect Standard to have rejected the claim as a whole, and not only part of the claim. That anomaly points to a misconception by Standard, and subsequently by the Ombud, as to the nature of the claim.”
On February 13, 2026, the appeal tribunal ruled in her favour. The total damage was assessed at R363 178.25. Standard paid R228 408.00 for roof replacement and R23 797.00 for emergency repairs and storage, but rejected the balance of R110 982.24, citing wear and tear exclusions.
The insured said: “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.”
According to the appellant, Architect Mike Scurr supported her claim, confirming the roof was destroyed by the storm, not wear and tear. He argued that partial repairs were impractical and left the structure vulnerable to future weather events. Roofing contractor Uriah van Zyl, who completed the final repairs, also confirmed the timber was not affected by termites or beetles.
Judge Frans Malan, in his ruling, said Scurr’s considerations were compelling and that the appellant was “entitled to be indemnified for the replacement of the entire roof.”
Broekmann says the case highlights the importance of persistence: “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.”
She advised consumers not to accept partial settlements without reserving the right to pursue the remainder of their claim, and to escalate disputes within insurers before approaching the Ombud. “Receive that in writing from the insurer or the assessor. If there is an assessor involved, get a copy of his report. Then collect evidence to support payment of your claim, which addresses the reason given by the insurer,” she said.
Broekmann says the case marks the first time an insurer has refused to respect a ruling obtained on appeal before the Financial Services Ombud. Only eight such appeals have been decided by the Ombud’s Appeals Tribunal.
PERSONAL FINANCE