The South African Police recently published the country’s latest crime statistics, which showed that vehicle-related crimes increased during the first quarter of 2021.
On average, the SAPS documented 52 hijackings, 109 stolen vehicles, and 246 thefts out of, or from, a vehicle per day.
The report also stated that car remote jamming was prevalent in South Africa – despite being one of the easiest crimes to mitigate.
A concern that goes along with car remote jamming is the possibility of not having your stolen possessions or vehicle covered by your insurance company in the event of such a crime.
“There is generally no cover if there is no evidence of a break-in to your vehicle – it is important to check that your car is locked before walking away,” said Aon South Africa on the topic.
To find out more, TopAuto reached out to prominent local insurance companies on the topic of car remote jamming.
In the event of your vehicle being stolen via a remote jamming incident, King Price states that it will pay out your claim.
“King Price will pay the claim as our vehicle cover doesn’t exclude remote jamming,” said Wynand van Vuuren, client experience partner at King Price.
With possessions inside the vehicle being stolen via remote jamming, however, matters are more complicated.
“Remote jamming is not an exclusion on vehicle theft claims, but most insurers are excluding cover for all-risk items stolen from a vehicle if there were no visible signs of forced entry.”
“So if there was remote jamming on a claim for an item stolen from a motor vehicle, it is not covered.”
MiWay Insurance will cover their clients in the event of vehicle theft via remote jamming, with the client’s unique circumstances considered in each case.
“A vehicle being signal jammed is not in itself sufficient grounds for a claim to be rejected on a stolen vehicle claim. The client’s cover and circumstances that led to the loss will be considered when making a decision on the claim,” said Karabo Kopeka, MiWay’s head of claims.
“MiWay requires visible signs of forced entry for a claim where portable possessions were stolen from a vehicle. Remote jamming is cited as an example for this exclusion under our policy wording for portable possessions.”
Portable possessions are grouped under the MiMovables category, with certain elements not covered by the standard MiWay vehicle insurance policy.
“MiWay does not offer cover specifically aimed at covering signal jamming,” added Kopeka.
The items not covered under MiMovables are detailed below.
OUTsurance clients are also covered for vehicle theft via car remote jamming – but not for unconcealed possessions stolen from inside the vehicle in this scenario.
“Vehicle theft as a result of car remote jamming is covered. This forms part of both our comprehensive and limited vehicle cover, so no additional cover is needed for this event,” said the company.
“Our requirement to have cover for theft out of a vehicle is that there must be visible signs of forced entry into the vehicle and the items that were stolen must have been concealed.”
“Whilst theft of this nature is not covered by our insurance policy, we do consider the nature of the incident, our client’s circumstances, and whether the items were concealed – and may make an exception by settling a first claim of this type of incident,” said OUTsurance.
One tip that each insurance company reiterated was for owners to carefully check that their car doors are locked, and personal items concealed, before leaving it unattended.