South Africa Case Law

Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another v AIG South Africa Limited and Others (049359/2022)

Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another v AIG South Africa Limited and Others (049359/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 689 (23 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

049359/2022

Judge

N Manoim

The High Court granted all five defendants leave to appeal on the contract and rectification issues in an insurance dispute over Covid-related business interruption cover.

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Contract Rectification
• Parol Evidence Rule
• Policy Integration
• Infectious Disease Cover
• Business-interruption-insurance

AIG South Africa Limited v 43 Air School Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (640/2023)

AIG South Africa Limited v 43 Air School Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (640/2023) [2024] ZASCA 97; [2024] 3 All SA 319 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 28 (SCA) (13 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

640/2023

Judges

Dambuza, Mokgohloa, Matojane, Coppin, Tolmay

The SCA held that business interruption cover was composite, not joint, and that AIG was liable for 43 Air School’s first two Covid-19 claims.

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Policy Interpretation
• Causation
• Reporting Conditions
• Composite Vs Joint Policy
• Covid 19 Regulations

Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another v AIG South Africa Limited and Others (049359/2022)

Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another v AIG South Africa Limited and Others (049359/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 423 (3 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

049359/2022

Judge

N Manoim

High Court insurance dispute over business interruption cover held that the final policy governed, ICD cover was included, rectification failed, and the premium defence failed.

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Infectious Contagious Disease Cover
• Parol Evidence Rule
• Contract Rectification
• Premium Payment Dispute
• Business-interruption-insurance

Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v Cafe Chameleon CC (632/20)

Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v Cafe Chameleon CC (632/20) [2020] ZASCA 173; [2021] 1 All SA 707 (SCA); 2021 (2) SA 323 (SCA) (17 December 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

632/20

Judges

Cachalia, Saldulker, Mbha, Ledwaba, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a business interruption policy covered losses caused by the Covid-19 lockdown where the disease occurred within 50 km of the premises.

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Causation
• Contractual Interpretation
• Notifiable Disease
• Government Lockdown
• Policy Wording

Interfax (Pty) Ltd and Another v Old Mutual Insure Limited (10906/2020)

Interfax (Pty) Ltd and Another v Old Mutual Insure Limited (10906/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 166 (25 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10906/2020

Judges

Davis, Gamble, Salie

The court held that the wording of the insurance policy covers business interruption resulting from contagious or infectious diseases within a 50 km radius of the insured premises, provided that the relevant authority imposes quarantine or restricts access in terms of applicable law. The court found that the national government's Covid-19 lockdown regulations, which included the applicant's area, satisfied these requirements. The policy does not require the regulatory response to be exclusively local; a national response that encompasses the local area is sufficient. The applicant established…

Source excerpt

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Contractual Interpretation
• Causation
• Covid 19 Regulations

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited (6499/2020)

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited (6499/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 160; [2021] 1 All SA 195 (WCC) (17 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6499/2020

Judges

Goliath, Mantame, Cloete

The Court held that the infectious diseases extension clause in the applicants' business interruption policies covered losses occasioned by the occurrence of Covid-19 within 40 kilometres of the insured premises. The government response, including lockdown, was found to be inextricably linked to the notifiable disease and formed part of the insured peril. Both factual and legal causation were established, as the applicants' losses would not have occurred but for the local outbreak and the government response. The Court rejected Santam's argument that the indemnity period was limited to 3 mont…

Source excerpt

• Business Interruption Insurance
• Policy Wording Interpretation
• Causation In Insurance
• Contra Proferentem
• Trends Clause
• Indemnity Period