South Africa Case Law

Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd (41/2015)

Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd (41/2015) [2016] ZASCA 21; [2016] 2 All SA 730 (SCA); 2016 (6) SA 335 (SCA) (18 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

41/2015

Judges

Maya, Wallis, Saldulker, Swain, Victor

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a Merchant Shipping Act warranty did not defeat an Inchmaree insurance claim and awarded Viking Inshore Fishing indemnity with interest.

• Marine Insurance
• Inchmaree Clause
• Merchant Shipping Act Warranty
• Due Diligence
• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Quantum Of Indemnity

Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Mutual & Federal Insurance Company Ltd (AC22/2007)

Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Mutual & Federal Insurance Company Ltd (AC22/2007) [2013] ZAWCHC 163 (30 October 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC22/2007

Judge

D M Davis

The court refused to separate issues in a marine insurance dispute over an Inchmaree clause, a Merchant Shipping Act warranty, and the onus on due diligence.

• Marine Insurance
• Inchmaree Clause
• Merchant Shipping Act Warranty
• Separation Of Issues
• Burden Of Proof
• Due Diligence

Lorcom Thirteen (Pty) Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Ltd (54/08)

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)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

54/08

Judge

Rogers

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

• Marine Insurance
• Insurable Interest
• Valued Policy
• Company Shareholder Interest

Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd v Representative of Lloyd's and Others (AC 38/2006)

Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd v Representative of Lloyd's and Others (AC 38/2006) [2009] ZAWCHC 14 (27 February 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC 38/2006

Judge

Cleaver

Marine insurance dispute over the sinking of the yacht Mieke. The court found a latent hull defect caused the loss and rejected the underwriters' avoidance defences.

• Marine Insurance
• Non Disclosure
• Latent Defect
• Implied Warranty Of Legality
• Broker Liability
• Misrepresentation

Fedsure General Insurance Ltd v Carefree Investments (Pty) Ltd (477/99)

Fedsure General Insurance Ltd v Carefree Investments (Pty) Ltd (477/99) [2001] ZASCA 88; [2002] 1 All SA 379 (A); 2001 (4) SA 1309 (SCA) (11 September 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

477/99

Judges

Howie, Schutz, Mpati, Cloete, Brand

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that stolen imported goods were not in the ordinary course of transit because they were left in bonded storage for commercial convenience.

• Marine Insurance
• Transit Clause
• Burden Of Proof
• Policy Interpretation
• Marine-insurance
• Transit-clause

Nel v Toron Screen Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another (600/94)

Nel v Toron Screen Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another (600/94) [1996] ZASCA 80 (23 August 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

600/94

Judges

Scott, Howie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the loss of the Wave Dancer was caused by a peril insured against under the marine insurance policy. The actual cause of the sinking remained unknown, and the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the loss was due to either external accidental means or a latent defect occurring during the period of insurance. The court further found no basis for importing a tacit term into the contract obliging Toron to compensate Nel beyond the insurance proceeds. The jurisdictional issu…

Source excerpt

• Marine Insurance
• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Implied And Tacit Terms
• Burden Of Proof
• Latent Defect
• Contractual Indemnity

Incorporated General Insurance Ltd v Fisheries (133/86)

Incorporated General Insurance Ltd v Fisheries (133/86) [1986] ZASCA 127 (20 November 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

133/86

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Viljoen, Van Heerden, Galgut

The court held that confiscation of the fishing trawler was caused by non-payment of the fine, not the insured arrest and detention peril.

• Marine Insurance
• Proximate Cause
• Risk Clause Interpretation
• Sue And Labour Clause
• Marine-insurance
• Proximate-cause