Flanegan v Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk and Another (559/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 125 (16 September 2010)

Flanegan v Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk and Another (559/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 125 (16 September 2010)

The court found the plaintiff and his daughter to be credible and reliable witnesses who corroborated each other on material aspects. The plaintiff gave clear instructions to insure 2.0 tons, which Van der Berg failed to implement. The defendant's version was improbable and unsupported by records or corroborating evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff's version was more probable and that the second defendant failed to carry out the mandate to insure 2.0 tons. The claim against the second defendant succeeded. The first defendant was not found to have any direct or substantial interest and no costs order was made against it.

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 125
Parties
Plaintiff: David Flanegan; Defendant: Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk; Defendant: Absa Makelaars
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2010
Case Number
559/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant succeeds; claim against the first defendant fails regarding costs.
Judges
Mocumie
Legal Topics
Insurance Contract, Mandate and Authority, Quantum Separation, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Contract Mandate and Authority Quantum Separation Costs Order

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Flanegan

Plaintiff

Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk

Defendant

Absa Makelaars

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant accepted the plaintiff's mandate to insure 2.0 tons of crops.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the repudiated portion of the insurance claim.
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant should be liable for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff and his daughter to be credible and reliable witnesses who corroborated each other on material aspects. The plaintiff gave clear instructions to insure 2.0 tons, which Van der Berg failed to implement. The defendant's version was improbable and unsupported by records or corroborating evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff's version was more probable and that the second defendant failed to carry out the mandate to insure 2.0 tons. The claim against the second defendant succeeded. The first defendant was not found to have any direct or substantial interest and no costs order was made against it.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant succeeds; claim against the first defendant fails regarding costs.

Orders

  • The second defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R181 844,00 to the plaintiff.
  • The second defendant is ordered to pay VAT on the amount of R181 844,00.