Protecta Insurance New Zealand: MUST WATCH Before You Insure! Unveiling Shocking Insurance Injustice
Join Danny De Hek as he exposes the shocking encounter with an insurance claims officer who adamantly blames him for an accident and demands a $500 excess payment. Despite presenting compelling evidence, the claims officer remains unwavering in their biased decision.
Witness the frustration, disbelief, and lack of objectivity Danny experiences throughout the conversation. This eye-opening video sheds light on the need for fair and impartial evaluations of claims and questions the integrity of the insurance system. Don’t miss this compelling exposé of the challenges faced by individuals seeking justice in insurance claims.
CHAPTERS / TIMESTAMPS
Protecta Mission, Vision and Values 02:45
Insurance History 04:45
Reply Protecta Insurance 10:00
Virginia Surety Company Inc 17:45
Telephone Conversation with Claims Officer Jeremy 19:50
The information and summary of facts have been collated on behalf of DANNY DE HEK for Protecta Insurance and are distributed under the assumption that they will not be shared with a third party.
I, Danny, have asked a colleague to review this matter given my communication difficulties due to dyslexia.
They make the following observations:
A) There is no evidence to suggest that Danny had moved into the other lane prior to the end of the lanes.
B) There is no evidence, even if Danny had done so, that this made an accident inevitable.
C) The other driver knew Danny was about to merge and attempted earlier to deny Danny the opportunity to do so.
D) The other driver, at no stage, moved ahead of Danny’s vehicle, so Danny was not obliged to merge behind that vehicle.
E) When the car both vehicles were following moved away, only Danny moved ahead, thus being entitled to believe the other vehicle had given him the right of way.
F) As Danny moves forward to merge, he:
1. Does so moving ahead of the car to his right.
2. Does so at a slow speed.
3. Does so by moving right at a passive angle.
4. Does so allowing a reasonable following distance from the car in front.
In other words, he is not placing his car aggressively or otherwise into a situation that causes the other driver with no option but to hit Danny’s car.
NOTE: The collision occurs well in the single lane, beyond where the two lanes merge.
G) The other driver has:
1. Let Danny move ahead of him.
2. Seen Danny move ahead and position his car to merge.
3. Seen Danny’s car and its direction for at least two seconds because.
4. Signaled this by his horn use.
5. Driven at a slower speed than Danny (less than 3-5mph indicated on the video), allowing Danny’s car to be 3/4 – 1 car length ahead and then.
6. Accelerated or changed direction (seemingly purposefully) to create an impact with Danny’s car (all at a very slow speed).
H) I do not believe – do you believe – that a reasonable person would conclude that Danny’s actions made this accident inevitable? Take into account the video footage and actions of the other driver; prior to merging, immediately prior to the collision, and post-collision.
If Danny was frustrated, I would suggest this would be a normal response, having encountered this situation.
I) Watching the video in slow motion and normal speed illustrates that Danny had reason to believe he was being allowed to merge. He had reason to believe that the car to his right, who was at best parallel (as agreed by Protecta Insurance in a previous email) but not ahead of him, and which did not immediately move forward when the car they were following moved, was now allowing Danny to merge. This collision was either incompetence or a deliberate act. How can we tell?
J) The incident as a whole suggests a deliberate act. The driver attempted to deny Danny room to merge, seemed to drive purposefully into Danny’s car, sped around Danny to cut him off, approached Danny’s vehicle delivering verbal abuse, and opened Danny’s door. The driver pursued Danny for at least 10 minutes, went through red lights, drove at speed, and eventually caused damage to the rear window of a stationary vehicle. These actions show the context and give clues as to the mindset and capabilities of the other driver.
Danny is the victim of road rage, and finally,
K) The NZ Police, having seen the video, have not charged Danny with a driving offence. They do not believe NZTA rules were breached.
I urge Protecta to review this decision given:
a) The police’s decision that no driving offence was committed by Danny.
b) The context and facts outlined above.
a) The amount involved compared to premiums paid.
b) Danny’s exemplary customer record and goodwill.
DANNY : DE HEK, “THE CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME AVENGER,“ a nickname given to me by the New York Times. I’m a YOUTUBER, PODCASTER, EDUCATOR and BLOGGER, and this website aims to showcase my passions. I believe in omnipresence!