South Africa's road safety crisis continues as speeding remains a leading cause of fatal accidents, impacting insurance claims and premiums. This article explores the implications of reckless driving on insurance policies and highlights recent disputes involving claim rejections.
Image: IOL / Ron AI
South Africa continues to hold the grim distinction of recording the highest annual road death toll on the African continent, with speeding remaining one of the leading causes of fatal crashes. Beyond the devastation on the roads, reckless driving is also driving up insurance costs as insurers grapple with rising claims and vehicle repair bills.
According to the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO), motorists are increasingly finding themselves exposed not only to the physical and financial consequences of accidents, but also to rejected insurance claims when speeding is involved.
National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa lead ombud of the Non-life Insurance Division, Edite Teixeira-Mckinon, says every collision places further strain on insurers, with the costs ultimately filtering through to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
“Worse still, when speeding is found to be the cause of an accident, insurers often invoke the ‘due care’ exclusion to reject claims outright. This clause requires policyholders to act reasonably to prevent losses and damage. Yet this exclusion clause is not always correctly applied,” she says.
According to the NFO, in one recent dispute handled by the ombud, a driver claimed he lost control of his vehicle after swerving to avoid a pothole on a bend before mounting the pavement.
The insurer rejected the claim based on a policy exclusion stating: “You have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent or reduce loss, damage, bodily injury, liability and accidents as if you did not have insurance.”
An accident reconstruction expert later found no evidence of a pothole and determined that the vehicle accelerated from 61km/h to 71km/h while negotiating the bend. The speed exceeded the critical limit for safely navigating the curve, leading the insurer to argue that the driver had acted recklessly.
However, Teixeira-Mckinon’s office disagreed with that interpretation. The ombud found that the policy itself covered negligent driving and that the insurer needed to prove deliberate recklessness to rely on the exclusion clause.
This meant the insurer had to show that the driver foresaw the possibility of losing control of the vehicle while travelling at 71km/h and consciously accepted that risk.
The ombud concluded that speed alone did not amount to recklessness. Travelling 11km/h above the speed limit constituted negligence rather than deliberate recklessness, and the insurer was advised to settle the claim, which it subsequently did.
The NFO says some insurance policies contain stricter exclusions that specifically deny cover when motorists exceed the speed limit by more than 20km/h. Unlike general “due care” clauses commonly found in short-term insurance contracts, these exclusions must be clearly disclosed to policyholders before the policy takes effect.
In another matter considered by the ombud, a driver travelling at 114km/h in a 60km/h zone had his claim rejected under this specific exclusion.
The insurer relied on tracking data retrieved from the vehicle, which showed the car's speed before the accident. Although the complainant disputed the accuracy of the tracking information and denied exceeding the speed limit by more than 20km/h, no evidence was provided to challenge the data.
The driver also said he could not remember exactly how the accident occurred and speculated that he may have swerved to avoid an object in the road before losing control of the vehicle.
The ombud pointed out that, in cases involving this type of exclusion, the insurer only needed to prove the applicable speed limit and demonstrate that the driver exceeded it by more than 20km/h.
After considering the available evidence, including the tracking data and the road's speed limit, the Non-life Insurance Division found that the insurer had met the required burden of proof to justify rejecting the claim.
PERSONAL FINANCE