GI
Guardrisk Insurance
Verified Business
GI
Guardrisk Insurance
Verified Business
61 Reviews (last 12 months)
Responds in 20 hours 59 min
AI Review Summary
Based on recent customer reviews, Guardrisk Insurance faces significant criticism across its claims handling, communication, and billing practices. Customers frequently report denied or delayed claims, particularly for device and vehicle insurance underwritten through partners like Huawei Care, Viva Cover, and Traffic Warranty. Unauthorized or continued debit orders after cancellation are a recurring frustration. Many reviewers describe being unable to reach consultants by phone or email. Transparency concerns around policy terms, excess fees, and settlement amounts are common. Positive experiences highlight individual staff members who provided prompt, professional service, though these remain a small minority.
Performance(last 12 months):
0Trustindex Rating
#49Ranked In Insurance
20h 59mReply Time
-61 NPSUnlikely
Replied to 81% of negative reviews
Reply time on negative reviews: 20 hours 23 min
TrustIndex
0
Ranking
#49
in Insurance
Avg Reply
20 hours 59 minutes
NPS Score
-61
Recommended: Unlikely
Replied to 81% of negative reviews
Reply time on negative reviews: 20 hours 23 min
Review Distribution
1.5|61 Reviews
May '25 - Apr '26
5(11.9%)
4(1.7%)
3(0%)
2(1.7%)
1(84.8%)
5(11.9%)
4(1.7%)
3(0%)
2(1.7%)
1(84.8%)
Frequently Asked Questions About Guardrisk Insurance
Based on recent customer reviews, Guardrisk Insurance faces significant criticism across its claims handling, communication, and billing practices. Customers frequently report denied or delayed claims, particularly for device and vehicle insurance underwritten through partners like Huawei Care, Viva Cover, and Traffic Warranty. Unauthorized or continued debit orders after cancellation are a recurring frustration. Many reviewers describe being unable to reach consultants by phone or email. Transparency concerns around policy terms, excess fees, and settlement amounts are common. Positive experiences highlight individual staff members who provided prompt, professional service, though these remain a small minority.
Guardrisk Insurance has a TrustIndex of 0 out of 10 on Hellopeter, based on 61 reviews in the last 12 months. They reply to 81% of negative reviews, typically within 20 hours 23 min. Hellopeter has tracked Guardrisk Insurance across 792 total reviews. How is the TrustIndex calculated? →
Recent reviews (61)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperiencemD
mali D
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
17 Mar 2026, 09:19
Huaweicover under Guardrisk the most useless insurance ever
I had a Viva cover for my Huawei device under Gaurdrisk for less than a year and recently suffered loss due to Pickpocketing . The reason for my claim being rejected was as follows “Specific Exclusions The Insurer shall not be liable for: • Theft or loss of the device from the person unless involving force or threat of force. • Any loss or damage arising as a result of mysterious and / or unexplained events.” The theft of my device was through force entry, and pickpocket is a technique normally used to force entry by distracting the owner and there is no possible way to notice such when passing through a passage in a public space. This is unfair and not a valid reason for rejection. Previously saw bad reviews on Viva cover but never thought it could happen to me
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)mD
mali D
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
17 Mar 2026, 09:19
Huaweicover under Guardrisk the most useless insurance ever
I had a Viva cover for my Huawei device under Gaurdrisk for less than a year and recently suffered loss due to Pickpocketing . The reason for my claim being rejected was as follows “Specific Exclusions The Insurer shall not be liable for: • Theft or loss of the device from the person unless involving force or threat of force. • Any loss or damage arising as a result of mysterious and / or unexplained events.” The theft of my device was through force entry, and pickpocket is a technique normally used to force entry by distracting the owner and there is no possible way to notice such when passing through a passage in a public space. This is unfair and not a valid reason for rejection. Previously saw bad reviews on Viva cover but never thought it could happen to me
0
Replies (0)PM
J
JP
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
9 Mar 2026, 07:51
FAIS Act broken
My Fiancé was contacted by these law breakers and was told about brest cancer. She said she was not interested and that she had medical aid then it went on and eventually they talked her into giving her bank details and now we must stop the debit order because gaurdrisk can't even answer a call. They are pathetic and trick people into paying for "breast cancer" The FAIS Act is broken here and this is a serious issue. Gaurdrisk is a joke!!!!!
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)J
JP
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
9 Mar 2026, 07:51
FAIS Act broken
My Fiancé was contacted by these law breakers and was told about brest cancer. She said she was not interested and that she had medical aid then it went on and eventually they talked her into giving her bank details and now we must stop the debit order because gaurdrisk can't even answer a call. They are pathetic and trick people into paying for "breast cancer" The FAIS Act is broken here and this is a serious issue. Gaurdrisk is a joke!!!!!
0
Replies (0)MM
Malesela M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
27 Feb 2026, 17:44
Compliance Concern: Device Insurance Policy Transparency & Fairness
I am raising a compliance and consumer transparency concern regarding a device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited. After reviewing the full policy wording against the FAIS Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), particularly within the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) framework, several provisions raise material fairness considerations. 1. Effective 40% Excess Within First 60 Days The policy applies: A 25% excess on all claims; and An additional 15% excess if a claim occurs within the first 60 days. This results in a potential 40% deduction from the claim value. From a TCF Outcome 3 perspective (clear and not misleading disclosure), the financial impact of this structure should be prominently and explicitly communicated at point of sale, as it significantly affects the value proposition of the product. 2. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy provides that failure to: Report a claim within 30 days; or Submit required documentation within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of all benefits. This operates as a strict condition precedent to liability. In practice, such absolute forfeiture provisions raise proportionality considerations, particularly where minor or administrative delays may occur without prejudice to the insurer. 3. Broad “Reasonable Precautions” Requirements The policy requires that devices must not be left in public places and must be safeguarded at all times. These clauses are broadly drafted and open to interpretation at claim stage. The concern is whether such wording may allow subjective assessment of precaution standards in genuine theft scenarios. Insurance products must not only be contractually enforceable — they must reflect transparency, proportionality, and fairness in application. I would welcome clarity from Viva Cover and Guardrisk on how these provisions are positioned to consumers at point of sale and how they align with TCF Outcomes 1, 3 and 6. Constructive engagement strengthens consumer confidence in the financial services sector. #Insurance #FAIS #TCF #Compliance #FinancialServices #ConsumerProtection #SouthAfrica
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)MM
Malesela M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
27 Feb 2026, 17:44
Compliance Concern: Device Insurance Policy Transparency & Fairness
I am raising a compliance and consumer transparency concern regarding a device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited. After reviewing the full policy wording against the FAIS Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), particularly within the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) framework, several provisions raise material fairness considerations. 1. Effective 40% Excess Within First 60 Days The policy applies: A 25% excess on all claims; and An additional 15% excess if a claim occurs within the first 60 days. This results in a potential 40% deduction from the claim value. From a TCF Outcome 3 perspective (clear and not misleading disclosure), the financial impact of this structure should be prominently and explicitly communicated at point of sale, as it significantly affects the value proposition of the product. 2. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy provides that failure to: Report a claim within 30 days; or Submit required documentation within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of all benefits. This operates as a strict condition precedent to liability. In practice, such absolute forfeiture provisions raise proportionality considerations, particularly where minor or administrative delays may occur without prejudice to the insurer. 3. Broad “Reasonable Precautions” Requirements The policy requires that devices must not be left in public places and must be safeguarded at all times. These clauses are broadly drafted and open to interpretation at claim stage. The concern is whether such wording may allow subjective assessment of precaution standards in genuine theft scenarios. Insurance products must not only be contractually enforceable — they must reflect transparency, proportionality, and fairness in application. I would welcome clarity from Viva Cover and Guardrisk on how these provisions are positioned to consumers at point of sale and how they align with TCF Outcomes 1, 3 and 6. Constructive engagement strengthens consumer confidence in the financial services sector. #Insurance #FAIS #TCF #Compliance #FinancialServices #ConsumerProtection #SouthAfrica
0
Replies (0)NS
Nqobile S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
7 Feb 2026, 06:08
Appeal Against Claim Rejection – Lost Cellphone
On 20 Dec 2025, I lost my cellphone during an Uber trip. I had placed it in my pocket while lifting my bag, but both my phone and keys slipped out at the same time. The driver only noticed the keys, which I collected immediately. I later realized the phone had also fallen. Guardrisk has denied my claim, saying I “dropped the phone from my hand.” This is not true — the phone was in my pocket, and the loss was accidental. They also seem to be applying a “loss from the person” exclusion, but there was no theft or force involved. I believe this decision is unfair and based on an incorrect understanding of the facts
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)NS
Nqobile S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
7 Feb 2026, 06:08
Appeal Against Claim Rejection – Lost Cellphone
On 20 Dec 2025, I lost my cellphone during an Uber trip. I had placed it in my pocket while lifting my bag, but both my phone and keys slipped out at the same time. The driver only noticed the keys, which I collected immediately. I later realized the phone had also fallen. Guardrisk has denied my claim, saying I “dropped the phone from my hand.” This is not true — the phone was in my pocket, and the loss was accidental. They also seem to be applying a “loss from the person” exclusion, but there was no theft or force involved. I believe this decision is unfair and based on an incorrect understanding of the facts
0
Replies (0)NR
Natasha R
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
3 Feb 2026, 06:39
Unauthorised debit order and dead extension lines for help
An unauthorised debit order appeared on my bank statement. I called the company and they said they would transfer me to the correct department, but suggested I take down the number of that department before they do. This already told me I'm in for a long ride... The transfer and options lead to a dead end and the number I was provided is on endless 'please hold'.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)NR
Natasha R
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
3 Feb 2026, 06:39
Unauthorised debit order and dead extension lines for help
An unauthorised debit order appeared on my bank statement. I called the company and they said they would transfer me to the correct department, but suggested I take down the number of that department before they do. This already told me I'm in for a long ride... The transfer and options lead to a dead end and the number I was provided is on endless 'please hold'.
0
Replies (0)MV
Martin V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
27 Jan 2026, 12:45
Mishandling of Approved Claim , Poor Replacement Process and Poor service
I have been without a device since December last year, and despite the claim being assessed and approved for R2299.00, I am still struggling to receive my replacement. After waiting an unreasonable amount of time for approval, I was subjected to further unnecessary obstacles at Exact Jabulani Mall. The store staff demanded an excess payment, scanned the phone, and then refused to release it, claiming that the “system is giving an error because the phone is on sale.” This excuse is unacceptable. Internal system errors or promotional pricing have nothing to do with my claim. I am entitled to my replacement device as approved, without additional charges or delays. I specifically chose the Honor X5c Plus 128GB Dual SIM, valued at R2299.90, which matches the approved claim amount. I attached proof of the device’s value and proof that the excess was paid. At no stage before payment was I informed that there would be any issue with the device being on sale. I paid the excess in good faith, and it is not my responsibility that the store’s system cannot process a claim due to its own pricing setup. This obstruction is extremely frustrating and directly impacts me, as I rely on this device for work purposes. The refusal to release the phone after scanning it demonstrates a complete disregard for the customer. My complaint has been handled by mere administrators who do not know what they are doing, responding to old correspondence instead of addressing the escalated matter. Lindo and Nqobile from Monitor responded while the Monitor complaints department was copied, yet they failed to take ownership of the query. TFG has been sending irrelevant emails stating that the query has been resolved, but I do not know which query they are referring to as mine remains unresolved. Venell from Monitor has failed to even acknowledge my escalated email. Who is going to compensate me for the income I have lost? When I registered the claim, I made it clear that I use the device for work purposes, yet no one wants to take responsibility. I purchased the device at a promotional price, and it is not my problem that the store decided to insure it at that promotional price instead of the original price. Your policy document refers to the original price, yet the device was insured at the promotional price. If I cannot take a replacement device that is on promotion, then why was my insured device accepted at a promotional price? Please do not tell me to go to TFG stores, as there is no device available at the value of R2299.00. All devices are currently on sale, and the insured device itself is on sale for R1999.00, while its original price is R2499.00. This situation is unacceptable. I expect urgent action and proper resolution, not vague responses or excuses. Please confirm where I can obtain the device valued at R2299.00, or implement one of the resolution options I have already proposed without further delay. This matter has dragged on long enough. I require feedback before close of business today.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)MV
Martin V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
27 Jan 2026, 12:45
Mishandling of Approved Claim , Poor Replacement Process and Poor service
I have been without a device since December last year, and despite the claim being assessed and approved for R2299.00, I am still struggling to receive my replacement. After waiting an unreasonable amount of time for approval, I was subjected to further unnecessary obstacles at Exact Jabulani Mall. The store staff demanded an excess payment, scanned the phone, and then refused to release it, claiming that the “system is giving an error because the phone is on sale.” This excuse is unacceptable. Internal system errors or promotional pricing have nothing to do with my claim. I am entitled to my replacement device as approved, without additional charges or delays. I specifically chose the Honor X5c Plus 128GB Dual SIM, valued at R2299.90, which matches the approved claim amount. I attached proof of the device’s value and proof that the excess was paid. At no stage before payment was I informed that there would be any issue with the device being on sale. I paid the excess in good faith, and it is not my responsibility that the store’s system cannot process a claim due to its own pricing setup. This obstruction is extremely frustrating and directly impacts me, as I rely on this device for work purposes. The refusal to release the phone after scanning it demonstrates a complete disregard for the customer. My complaint has been handled by mere administrators who do not know what they are doing, responding to old correspondence instead of addressing the escalated matter. Lindo and Nqobile from Monitor responded while the Monitor complaints department was copied, yet they failed to take ownership of the query. TFG has been sending irrelevant emails stating that the query has been resolved, but I do not know which query they are referring to as mine remains unresolved. Venell from Monitor has failed to even acknowledge my escalated email. Who is going to compensate me for the income I have lost? When I registered the claim, I made it clear that I use the device for work purposes, yet no one wants to take responsibility. I purchased the device at a promotional price, and it is not my problem that the store decided to insure it at that promotional price instead of the original price. Your policy document refers to the original price, yet the device was insured at the promotional price. If I cannot take a replacement device that is on promotion, then why was my insured device accepted at a promotional price? Please do not tell me to go to TFG stores, as there is no device available at the value of R2299.00. All devices are currently on sale, and the insured device itself is on sale for R1999.00, while its original price is R2499.00. This situation is unacceptable. I expect urgent action and proper resolution, not vague responses or excuses. Please confirm where I can obtain the device valued at R2299.00, or implement one of the resolution options I have already proposed without further delay. This matter has dragged on long enough. I require feedback before close of business today.
0
Replies (0)NM
Nelisiwe M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
16 Jan 2026, 17:38
Phenomenon service
What a grea service. I purchased my car last year April. I had a tire bust. And i claimed from Traffic Warranty within 3 days my claim was paid. Not me again getting amazing service from Cameron Van der Vent. Great advise as a new car owner. I just called to find out about my second claim for scratch and paint. Thank you so much 🙏
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)NM
Nelisiwe M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
16 Jan 2026, 17:38
Phenomenon service
What a grea service. I purchased my car last year April. I had a tire bust. And i claimed from Traffic Warranty within 3 days my claim was paid. Not me again getting amazing service from Cameron Van der Vent. Great advise as a new car owner. I just called to find out about my second claim for scratch and paint. Thank you so much 🙏
0
Replies (0)