Lockdown claims: Material differences between our case and Guardrisk, says Santam

0:00
play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
Santam says while there are similarities between its case and the Guardrisk case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, there are also material differences.
Photo: Gallo Images/Jacques Stander
Santam says while there are similarities between its case and the Guardrisk case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, there are also material differences. Photo: Gallo Images/Jacques Stander

Santam says it is going to consider the Supreme Court of Appeal SCA judgment against Guardrisk and assess its potential impact on the insurer's own appeal case.

On Thursday, the SCA dismissed Guardrisk's appeal against the Western Cape High Court, which had ordered the insurer to pay Café Chameleon’s business interruption claim in July.  

Santam had also been ordered by the court to pay its clients, Ma-Afrika Hotels and Stellenbosch Kitchen's claims. But it announced that it would be taking the same route as Guardrisk and appeal the matter at the SCA.

On Friday, the country's biggest short-term insurer said because matters involving business interruption insurance are complex, there were differences between its and Guardrisk's case to consider and it also wanted to discuss the implications of the Guardrisk judgment with its reinsurers.

Suspended

"While there are similarities between the Café Chameleon and Guardrisk Insurance case and the Santam case before the courts, there are also material differences in the initial judgments that were handed down by the Western Cape High Court," said Santam in a statement.

But for now, the fact that the insurer has applied for leave to appeal its case means that the Western Cape High Court judgment, which said it must pay 18 months' worth of Ma-Afrika and Stellenbosch Kitchen's losses, remains suspended, said the insurer.

Santam said its application for leave to appeal the Ma-Afrika judgment was supposed to be heard by the Western Cape High Court on 8 December, but this did not happen as Ma-Afrika and Stellenbosch Kitchen's legal team was not available.

Compiled by Londiwe Buthelezi

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For only R75 per month, you have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today.
Subscribe to News24
ZAR/USD
15.09
(-0.16)
ZAR/GBP
21.02
(-0.23)
ZAR/EUR
18.22
(-0.19)
ZAR/AUD
11.62
(-0.25)
ZAR/JPY
0.14
(-0.54)
Gold
1734.50
(+0.02)
Silver
26.67
(+0.05)
Platinum
1186.51
(+0.42)
Brent Crude
64.40
(-2.56)
Palladium
2310.00
(+0.58)
All Share
66138.05
(-1.99)
Top 40
60754.30
(-2.11)
Financial 15
12200.05
(-1.09)
Industrial 25
86144.34
(-0.81)
Resource 10
67459.85
(-4.14)
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes morningstar logo
Company Snapshot
Voting Booth
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes, and I've gotten it.
21% - 1028 votes
No, I did not.
52% - 2566 votes
My landlord refused
28% - 1379 votes
Vote