function set_Cookie()
    {
        document.cookie = "myurl=" + document.location.href + ";path=/";
    }

    set_Cookie();

        
document.write("<a href=\"javascript: startPop('/pls/cms/article_comments.add_comment?p_dopop=Y&p_content_id=1300180');\"><img src=/pics/addcomment.gif border=0></a></div></div>");
document.write("<div class=\"article_Comments\">USER COMMENTS >");
document.write("<h5>Short term insurance</h5>");
document.write("Please take note of the following <br /><br />General conditions<br />(14) Annulment of the policy<br /><br />This policy or any part thereof can be declared null and void by us if any details which affect the risk are not disclosed, or are misrepresented or misdescribed by you or on your behalf, or if we are not informed of an alteration in the risk by you or on your behalf.<br /><br />I enquired more detail pertaining this condition from Ralie de Wet of Prestasi with specific mention as to what was seen as an “alteration in the risk”.<br />In a letter from Hentie Gerber of Santam he wrote the following:<br /><br />“The insured has a duty to disclose any change in the risk to the insurer.”<br /><br />“It must be established that builders on your premises is a material fact or not. We know that theft is rife in South Africa and we also know that where builders are in the area, there is usually a spate of burglaries as well. It would seem to us that this is a material fact that had to be disclosed.”<br /><br />I was not aware that Santam viewed all building contractors as criminals. Prestasi/Santam made no mention either verbally or in writing regarding the fact that I was required to inform them when building contractors were working on my property. If it is indeed the case I would like to know why policy holders like me were not informed of this requirement.<br /><br />Santam must inform all policy holders of what they perceive as an \"alteration to the risk\" as mentioned in clause 14. (E.g. Building contractors on premises etc. )<br />Santam must provide detailed procedures for the reporting of such \"alterations to the risk\" and inform all policy holders of those procedures.<br />Santam must provide policy holders with the cost implications when reporting these \"alterations to the risk\" and what risks will not be covered.<br />Santam to give clear indication of the criteria they use for repudiating claims.<br /><br />Santam seems to be using this clause as a loophole because they can decide what constitutes an “alteration in the risk” of a policy without notifying their policy holders. <br /><br />In a conversation with DJ Prentis assessors on 19 August 2005 I enquired how many claims were being repudiated through the use of this clause and the answer was “PLENTY”.. Ernest Ank");
document.write("<h5>Insurance ripoffs</h5>");
document.write("In a burglary, what usually gets taken? Not the old books from your boookshelf, but your TV, VCR, hi-fi etc, not so? I read my policy carefully and found the company 'only paid out one-third of the value for electronic goods.' Yet when they come to assess you, they attribute value to your second-hand books, everything in your linen cupboard etc etc and establish your premium accordingly. I live in a secure complex and cancelled my Householders insurance years ago, except in the case of fire. Have saved so much over the years, I could easily replace all my electronic goods with no problem. So - be sure to read your fine print. . gerald ");
document.write("</div>");