Isando Foods (Pty) Lrd v Fedgen Insurance Company Ltd (394/99) [2001] ZASCA 66; [2001] 4 All SA 62 (A); 2001 (3) SA 1278 (SCA) (23 May 2001)

Isando Foods (Pty) Lrd v Fedgen Insurance Company Ltd (394/99) [2001] ZASCA 66; [2001] 4 All SA 62 (A); 2001 (3) SA 1278 (SCA) (23 May 2001)

The court held that the phrase 'for which the insured are responsible' in the fire insurance policy serves to limit the insurance to the insured's interest in the specified property, not to describe the insurable interest or define the property insured. The insured is responsible for loss that falls upon itself, including loss caused by its own fault or that of third parties for whom it is responsible. However, the appellant failed to establish that the loss from the fire fell upon itself and not the owner, as the evidence did not show the cause of the fire or that the risk had passed to the appellant. Consequently, the appellant's claim did not fall within the scope of the insurance...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Isando Foods (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Fedgen Insurance Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2001
Case Number
394/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Hefer, Howie, Nugent
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Interpretation, Insurable Interest, Fire Damage Liability
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Policy Interpretation Insurable Interest Fire Damage Liability

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isando Foods (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Fedgen Insurance Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was 'responsible' for the damaged extraction plant under the terms of the fire insurance policy.
  2. 2 Whether the loss sustained fell within the scope of the insured's responsibility as contemplated by the policy.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established that the loss fell upon itself and not the owner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the phrase 'for which the insured are responsible' in the fire insurance policy serves to limit the insurance to the insured's interest in the specified property, not to describe the insurable interest or define the property insured. The insured is responsible for loss that falls upon itself, including loss caused by its own fault or that of third parties for whom it is responsible. However, the appellant failed to establish that the loss from the fire fell upon itself and not the owner, as the evidence did not show the cause of the fire or that the risk had passed to the appellant. Consequently, the appellant's claim did not fall within the scope of the insurance...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.