Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Vitash Trucking CC and Another v Vervoer and Others (1707/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 163 (16 May 2024)
High Court motor collision matter: the court found both drivers negligent and apportioned liability 80% against the defendants and 20% against the plaintiffs.
Ossie Pretorius Landgoed CC v Heavy Commercial Vehicle Underwriting Managers (Pty) and Another (47468/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 363 (5 December 2017)
The court found that the plaintiff, a close corporation, had an insurable interest in both the vehicles and the goods conveyed, as evidenced by documentation, witness testimony, and the conduct of business. The vehicles had valid roadworthy certificates and were regularly maintained, and the driver’s actions and the physical evidence at the scene supported the conclusion that the vehicles were roadworthy at the time of the collision. The expert evidence provided by the defendants was based on post-collision inspection and did not outweigh the direct evidence from witnesses present at the scen…
Source excerpt
Lorcom Thirteen (Pty) Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Ltd (54/08) [2013] ZAWCHC 64; 2013 (5) SA 42 (WCC); [2013] 4 All SA 71 (WCC) (29 April 2013)
The court held that Lorcom Thirteen (Pty) Ltd had an insurable interest in the vessel Buccaneer sufficient to sustain insurance cover measured by the market value of the vessel. This interest arose from Lorcom's 100% shareholding in the owner company (GFW), its right of use of the vessel, and its well-founded expectation of becoming the owner. The court found that the insurance policy did not require Lorcom to prove patrimonial loss, but rather covered the physical loss of the vessel as stipulated. The court adopted a flexible approach to insurable interest, recognising that a shareholder may…
Source excerpt
Mutual and Federal Ltd. v Rumdel Construction (Pty) Ltd. (373/03) [2004] ZASCA 82; [2005] 1 All SA 405 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 179 (SCA) (21 September 2004)
The court held the contractor had an insurable interest in storm-damaged road works, rejected the defective-design exclusion, and allowed interest from demand.
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 Supreme Court of Appeal held that “for which the insured is responsible” limits fire cover to loss borne by the insured. The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove such loss.
Commercial Union Insurance Company of South Africa Ltd. v Lotter (146/97) [1998] ZASCA 103; 1999 (2) SA 147 (SCA); [1999] 1 All SA 235 (A) (26 November 1998)
The court held that failure to disclose the vehicle’s stolen status was material non-disclosure, allowing the insurer to repudiate liability.
Explore more
