Van Immerzeel and Another v Santam Ltd (646/2004) [2005] ZASCA 128; [2006] 3 All SA 434 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 349 (SCA) (5 December 2005)

Van Immerzeel and Another v Santam Ltd (646/2004) [2005] ZASCA 128; [2006] 3 All SA 434 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 349 (SCA) (5 December 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the notification given by the appellants in June 1991 was merely of a potential claim and did not constitute a claim made for the purposes of the 1993 policy. The court found that the natural meaning of 'claim' requires a demand or assertion of liability, which was only made when Samancor instituted action in November 1993, during the period of the 1993 policy. The deeming provision in condition 2(b) applies only to notifications given during the relevant policy period and does not operate across distinct policies. The 1993 policy did not exclude claims previously notified, and the appellants were entitled to claim under the 1993 policy. The...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Piet van Immerzeel; Appellant: Strat Pohl; Respondent: Santam Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2005
Case Number
646/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court, Pretoria; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal succeeds; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Zulman, Streicher, Navsa, Mthiyane, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Claims Made Policy, Policy Interpretation, Notification of Claim, Limit of Indemnity
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Professional Indemnity Insurance Claims Made Policy Policy Interpretation Notification of Claim Limit of Indemnity

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piet van Immerzeel

Appellant

Strat Pohl

Appellant

Santam Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court, Pretoria; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action instituted by Samancor against the appellants constituted a 'claim first made' within the meaning of the insurance policy issued for the period 1 March 1993 to 28 February 1994.
  2. 2 Whether notification of a potential claim in 1991 constituted a claim made for the purposes of the 1993 policy.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are entitled to indemnity under the 1993 policy or only under the 1991 policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the notification given by the appellants in June 1991 was merely of a potential claim and did not constitute a claim made for the purposes of the 1993 policy. The court found that the natural meaning of 'claim' requires a demand or assertion of liability, which was only made when Samancor instituted action in November 1993, during the period of the 1993 policy. The deeming provision in condition 2(b) applies only to notifications given during the relevant policy period and does not operate across distinct policies. The 1993 policy did not exclude claims previously notified, and the appellants were entitled to claim under the 1993 policy. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay an amount of R1,000,000 together with interest on the sum of R1,000,000 calculated at the rate of 15.5% per annum from 30 June 1998, plus costs.