Pretorius v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van Suid-Afrika Bpk 1995 (3) SA 778 (O)

Pretorius v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van Suid-Afrika Bpk 1995 (3) SA 778 (O)

Issue: Whether an insurer is liable for the full value of a stolen vehicle if the insured has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft.

Facts:

The plaintiff, Pretorius, insured his motor vehicle with the defendant, Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van Suid-Afrika Bpk (Commercial Union). The insurance policy required Pretorius to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of his vehicle.

One day, Pretorius's vehicle was stolen from his driveway. Pretorius had not locked the vehicle and had left the keys in the ignition. Pretorius claimed that the theft was covered by his insurance policy.

Commercial Union refused to pay Pretorius's claim, arguing that Pretorius had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of his vehicle. Commercial Union argued that Pretorius's failure to lock the vehicle and to remove the keys from the ignition had made it easy for the thief to steal the vehicle.

Held:

The court held that Commercial Union was liable to pay Pretorius's claim. The court reasoned that Pretorius's failure to lock the vehicle and to remove the keys from the ignition had not been the sole cause of the theft. The court also found that Pretorius's failure to take these precautions had not increased the risk of theft.

Key Facts:

• The plaintiff insured his motor vehicle with the defendant.
• The insurance policy required the plaintiff to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of his vehicle.
• The plaintiff's vehicle was stolen from his driveway.
• The plaintiff had not locked the vehicle and had left the keys in the ignition.
• The plaintiff claimed that the theft was covered by his insurance policy.
• The defendant refused to pay the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of his vehicle.
• The court held that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff's claim.

Reasons:

• The court found that the plaintiff's failure to lock the vehicle and to remove the keys from the ignition had not been the sole cause of the theft.
• The court reasoned that the theft had also been caused by the actions of the thief.
• The court also found that the plaintiff's failure to take these precautions had not increased the risk of theft.
• The court reasoned that the vehicle would have been stolen even if the plaintiff had locked the vehicle and removed the keys from the ignition.

Conclusion:

The court's decision in Pretorius v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van Suid-Afrika Bpk 1995 (3) SA 778 (O) is a significant case in South African law. The court's decision made it clear that an insurer is not always able to avoid liability for the theft of a vehicle simply because the insured has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft.