The Non-life Insurance Division of the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) has affirmed that the absence of a valid professional driving permit (PrDP) did not materially contribute to the loss of a truck that was hijacked at gunpoint.
The NFO's determination came after an insurance company denied a claim on the grounds that the truck driver had an expired PrDP at the time of the hijacking. While it is true that the driver should have held a valid PrDP, the ruling emphasises that such a regulatory breach did not directly cause the loss sustained by the insured.
The insurer contended that allowing claims where regulatory requirements were breached would imply a tolerance for illegal behaviour. However, the NFO noted that public policy considerations must also be balanced with fairness, particularly where an isolated incident does not contribute to a loss.
The NFO's recommendation clearly stated, “In this instance, the driver’s actions did not contribute to the hijacking incident, and the expired PrDP is, therefore, merely a regulatory violation.” The emphasis is placed on the notion that to reject a claim based solely on an expired permit, the insurer must convincingly link that lapse to the theft incident. Without evidence demonstrating a direct connection, the expired PrDP holds little weight in assessing liability.
The ruling also cited the case of Everite Building Products Ltd v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd, reinforcing that insurance policies should cater to risks outlined by the insured event rather than void coverage for minor deviations from policy terms. In this case, the expired PrDP was determined to be immaterial to the loss, the hijacking was a criminal act, irrespective of the driver's permit status, indicating that no amount of regulatory compliance would have altered the outcome of the crime.
While the insurers temporarily argued that maintaining strict adherence to policy terms was necessary for public safety, the NFO pointed out that penalising a driver for a singular oversight would contravene principles of equity. A pivotal aspect of this ruling is the recognition that each incident should be evaluated individually, allowing for the possibility of fair outcomes even when procedural shortcomings are present.
Following the provisional ruling, the insurer agreed to settle the claim, a decision guided by a commitment to uphold fairness in the evaluation of individual circumstances. The driver subsequently renewed their PrDP, although it was concluded that the lapse did not factor into the hijacking scenario.
#Conviction
