The South African Supreme Court of Appeal recently delivered a judgment in the case of AIG South Africa Limited v 43 Air School Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others, clarifying the distinction between joint and composite insurance policies, thereby addressing a long-debated issue among insurers and legal professionals.
This judgment is arguably the most authoritative decision in our jurisdiction, offering insurers and legal practitioners clear guidelines on what constitutes a composite policy. Central to this distinction is the insured parties' vested interest in the subject of insurance.
In this case, the court considered various factors, particularly focusing on the distinct interests of the insured entities in their gross profit under the business interruption section of the policy. The ruling emphasized that each entity's interest in their own gross profit was independent and not influenced by other insured entities under the policy.
Join Tony Hardie, Shané Ganswyk, Gina Willson, and Jakop T Mphofu as we delve into the implications of the SCA judgment for insurers and extract key lessons from the Court's decisions. Read our latest article to stay ahead of the curve!
Analysis: The #SouthAfrica Supreme Court of Appeal recently delivered an important judgment in AIG South Africa Limited v 43 Air School Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others in relation to the much-debated question regarding the difference between joint and composite policies.
The court found that, on the facts of the matter, the different entities insured under the Policy did not have the same, or a common interest in the subject-matter, namely business interruption cover for loss of gross profit but rather that each entity has a separate or different interest in its own loss of gross profit. Read our article for more insights ✏️ https://bit.ly/3xWxklA
#Insurance #DisputeResolution
“Know your worth”! Anishnabe kwe living my life’s purpose, connecting , and sharing my gifts.
1moAwesome to see you both there representing and connecting with our communities.