Foodcorp Insurance Fund v Eljoney Body Repairs (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Claassen J
• Judgment Date: 20 November 2008
• Docket Number: A 1507/05
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division
• Hearing Date: 20 November 2008
• Citation: 2008 JDR 1522 (W)

R D Claassen J:

1.

The Appellant is the Insurer for the fleet of vehicles used within its group of companies. One of its vehicles, a BMW 525i was damaged in a collision and sent by Appellant to Respondent to have the repairs done.

2.

As in the normal course of events, Appellant's assessor viewed the quotation prepared by the Respondent for the outside and visible damage

2008 JDR 1522 p2

R D Claassen J

and authorised it in an amount of R103.000.00-odd. Thereafter a second quote was obtained after the car was stripped, (also on authority of the assessor) and another quotation was prepared and approved by the assessor (a Mr Vuurman) in an amount of R8.800,00-odd.

3.

As part of the repairs certain work had to be done by an authorised BMW agent (BMW"). This included inter alia BMW's so-called "20-point check". This check is actually done by a computer and shows up any faults not yet spotted or fixed.

4.

The purpose of the 20-point check is to make sure that the vehicle, after the damages have been repaired, will be in the same condition as before so as not to prejudice the motorplan repair scheme attaching to the specific vehicle. The normal procedure is then that whatever is shown up by the 20-point check should be fixed, whether by BMW itself or the Respondent in this case. It is common cause that there are certain things that only BMW can repair.

2008 JDR 1522 p3

R D Claassen J

5.

It was common cause that the contract for repairs was between the Appellant and the Respondent. Respondent had to obtain the authority of the Appellant to have any work outsourced, for example to BMW. It is also common cause that there is normally a 2-tier procedure in this process. Firstly, there is the authority to have the 20-point check done. That entails only connecting the vehicle to the checking machine. Secondly, if it shows up any faults, the authority needs to be obtained to have the repairs done.

6.

In this instance the assessor authorised the outsourcing to BMW for certain specific items as well as for the 20-point check. An amount of R750.00 was allowed for the check to be done. After completion of all the repairs the car was handed back to the owner thereof by Respondent and Appellant paid to the Respondent the amounts stated in the two quotes.

7.

Some time after the invoices relating to the two quotes were paid. Respondent sent a further invoice to Appellant for an additional amount of

2008 JDR 1522 p4

R D Claassen J

R12 573,00 relating to work done pursuant to the faults showed up by the 20-point check. (This was over and above the items already authorised to be done by BMW in the two mentioned quotes). Appellant refused to pay this amount which caused Respondent to institute action against it for payment thereof. Respondent succeeded in the Court a quo, therefore this appeal by the Appellant.

8.

At the trial the Appellant raised various defences to the claim. The first one was that the Respondent did not obtain the necessary authority from the Appellant to have the additional work done by BMW as shown by the 20 point check...