Fedgen Insurance Ltd. v Leyds (475/93) [1995] ZASCA 20; 1995 (3) SA 33 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 357 (A) (27 March 1995)

Fedgen Insurance Ltd. v Leyds (475/93) [1995] ZASCA 20; 1995 (3) SA 33 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 357 (A) (27 March 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurance policy provided comprehensive cover for loss or damage, including theft, without limitation as to the use of the vehicle at the time of theft. The exclusionary clause in the policy applied only to 'accidents', which, in its ordinary meaning and context, did not include theft, as theft is an intentional act. Any ambiguity in the policy wording was resolved against Fedgen as the drafter. Therefore, Fedgen was liable to indemnify Leyds for the theft of the Mercedes. However, the policy's Table of Deductibles entitled Fedgen to deduct 10% of the gross claim (R2,550) due to the absence of an anti-theft device, reducing the award to R22,650....

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Fedgen Insurance Limited; Respondent: Peter Ronald Leyds
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 1995
Case Number
475/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; award reduced to R22,650; costs apportioned.
Judges
Hefer, Smalberger, FH Grosskopf, Nienaber, Van den Heever
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Interpretation, Exclusion Clauses, Contra Proferentem, Deductibles, Theft Claims
Commercial and Corporate Insurance Policy Interpretation Exclusion Clauses Contra Proferentem Deductibles Theft Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fedgen Insurance Limited

Appellant

Peter Ronald Leyds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance policy covered theft of the insured vehicle irrespective of its use at the time of theft.
  2. 2 Whether the exclusionary provisions in the policy applied to theft as an 'accident'.
  3. 3 Whether Fedgen was entitled to deduct 10% of the claim due to the absence of an anti-theft device.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurance policy provided comprehensive cover for loss or damage, including theft, without limitation as to the use of the vehicle at the time of theft. The exclusionary clause in the policy applied only to 'accidents', which, in its ordinary meaning and context, did not include theft, as theft is an intentional act. Any ambiguity in the policy wording was resolved against Fedgen as the drafter. Therefore, Fedgen was liable to indemnify Leyds for the theft of the Mercedes. However, the policy's Table of Deductibles entitled Fedgen to deduct 10% of the gross claim (R2,550) due to the absence of an anti-theft device, reducing the award to R22,650....

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; award reduced to R22,650; costs apportioned.

Orders

  • The amount awarded by the trial court is reduced from R25,200 to R22,650.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay 90% of the respondent's costs of appeal.