King Price Insurance Company Ltd v Concise Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd (1067/2019) [2021] ZASCA 42 (13 April 2021)

King Price Insurance Company Ltd v Concise Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd (1067/2019) [2021] ZASCA 42 (13 April 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Mr Ngobese was not acting on behalf of the respondent when he provided information to the insurer during the claims validation process. The evidence showed that the claim had already been lodged by the respondent's managing director, and Mr Ngobese was contacted by the insurer solely to provide details as the driver involved in the accident. There was no evidence that Mr Ngobese was authorised to act as the respondent's agent in this context, nor that his statements were made for the benefit of the respondent. The court held that any ambiguity in the contract regarding 'acting on behalf of the insured' should be resolved against the insurer,...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: King Price Insurance Company Ltd; Respondent: Concise Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2021
Case Number
1067/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Mbha, Zondi, Molemela, Kgoele, Rogers
Legal Topics
Insurance Contract, Repudiation of Claim, Agency, Material Misrepresentation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Contract Repudiation of Claim Agency Material Misrepresentation

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

King Price Insurance Company Ltd

Appellant

Concise Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether false and misleading information provided by the respondent's employee to the insurer was attributable to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether such information was material to justify the repudiation of the claim and cancellation of the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the insurer discharged its onus to justify repudiation and cancellation of the insurance contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Mr Ngobese was not acting on behalf of the respondent when he provided information to the insurer during the claims validation process. The evidence showed that the claim had already been lodged by the respondent's managing director, and Mr Ngobese was contacted by the insurer solely to provide details as the driver involved in the accident. There was no evidence that Mr Ngobese was authorised to act as the respondent's agent in this context, nor that his statements were made for the benefit of the respondent. The court held that any ambiguity in the contract regarding 'acting on behalf of the insured' should be resolved against the insurer,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include the costs of two counsel, where employed.