Wessels h/a VR Vervoer v Makelaars (1295/2005) [2007] ZAFSHC 89 (30 August 2007)

Wessels h/a VR Vervoer v Makelaars (1295/2005) [2007] ZAFSHC 89 (30 August 2007)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant broker did not adequately inform the plaintiff of the exclusion clause requiring an approved tracking system for theft cover under the Regent Insurance policy. The defendant's own testimony was uncertain and did not establish that he had clearly communicated the material change in coverage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's failure to install a tracking system was consistent with his belief that only a higher excess would apply, not a total exclusion of theft cover. The court held that the broker's failure to notify the plaintiff of the exclusion clause constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiff is entitled to be...

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 89
Parties
Plaintiff: Riebeek Wessels h/a VR Vervoer; Defendant: Conrad Schoeman Makelaars
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2007
Case Number
1295/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on liability; quantum of damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings.
Judges
C.B. Cillié, R
Legal Topics
Insurance Broker Liability, Contractual Breach, Exclusion Clause Notification, Quantum of Damages
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Broker Liability Contractual Breach Exclusion Clause Notification Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Riebeek Wessels h/a VR Vervoer

Plaintiff

Conrad Schoeman Makelaars

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant broker failed to inform the plaintiff of the exclusion clause requiring an approved tracking system for theft cover.
  2. 2 Whether such failure constituted a breach of contract by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the broker's breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant broker did not adequately inform the plaintiff of the exclusion clause requiring an approved tracking system for theft cover under the Regent Insurance policy. The defendant's own testimony was uncertain and did not establish that he had clearly communicated the material change in coverage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's failure to install a tracking system was consistent with his belief that only a higher excess would apply, not a total exclusion of theft cover. The court held that the broker's failure to notify the plaintiff of the exclusion clause constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiff is entitled to be...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on liability; quantum of damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damages as the plaintiff proves he suffered as a result of the defendant's breach of contract.
  • Defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs to date.