Incorporated General Insurance Ltd v Fisheries (133/86) [1986] ZASCA 127 (20 November 1986)

Incorporated General Insurance Ltd v Fisheries (133/86) [1986] ZASCA 127 (20 November 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the confiscation of the trawler was not proximately caused by the insured peril of arrest and detainment by the Mozambican authorities, but rather by the failure to pay the fine imposed by the Mozambican tribunal. The court found that the loss did not result from a continuous process beginning with the arrest, but from a supervening cause—non-payment of the fine—which was not a peril covered by the risk clause in the War Risks policy. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the entire sequence constituted a single insured peril and concluded that the proximate cause of the loss was the plaintiff's inability to pay the fine, not the initial...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 127
Parties
Appellant: Incorporated General Insurances Ltd; Respondent: A.R. Shooter t/a Shooter's Fisheries
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 1986
Case Number
133/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Durban and Coast Local Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Viljoen, Van Heerden, Galgut
Legal Topics
Marine Insurance, Proximate Cause, Risk Clause Interpretation, Sue and Labour Clause
Admiralty and Maritime Commercial and Corporate Marine Insurance Proximate Cause Risk Clause Interpretation Sue and Labour Clause

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Incorporated General Insurances Ltd

Appellant

A.R. Shooter t/a Shooter's Fisheries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Durban and Coast Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation of the trawler was covered by the risks insured under the War Risks policy.
  2. 2 Whether the proximate cause of the loss was the arrest and detainment or the failure to pay the fine imposed by the Mozambican tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether notice of abandonment was required for the plaintiff's claim to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the confiscation of the trawler was not proximately caused by the insured peril of arrest and detainment by the Mozambican authorities, but rather by the failure to pay the fine imposed by the Mozambican tribunal. The court found that the loss did not result from a continuous process beginning with the arrest, but from a supervening cause—non-payment of the fine—which was not a peril covered by the risk clause in the War Risks policy. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the entire sequence constituted a single insured peril and concluded that the proximate cause of the loss was the plaintiff's inability to pay the fine, not the initial...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.'