Multiplan Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Van Blerk

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Howard J
• Judgment Date: 11 March 1985
• Citation: 1985 (3) SA 164 (D)
• Hearing Date: 19 February 1985
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Howard J:

The applicant, a company duly incorporated with limited liability, carries on business as an insurance broker under the name of Multiplan. In the course of its business the applicant issues "Multiplan" insurance policies underwritten by Hollard Insurance Co (Pty) Ltd. The respondent was the holder of such a policy issued by the applicant in November 1983.

I On 30 March 1984 the respondent lodged a claim under the policy for compensation for the loss of certain articles allegedly stolen from her motor vehicle. The applicant repudiated this claim, and it is common cause that it was entitled to do so on the ground that the loss did not occur in circumstances covered by the policy.

J During May 1984 the applicant received a further claim from the respondent. On this occasion she claimed an indemnity under the policy

Howard J

for damage sustained by her motor vehicle in an accident on 10 A April 1984. This claim was also repudiated, on the ground that the policy had lapsed because the respondent had not timeously paid the monthly premiums for March and April 1984. There is a dispute about whether the applicant was entitled to repudiate on this ground, but it has not been proved or even alleged, and B neither does counsel for the respondent contend, that the applicant did not honestly believe that the repudiation was justified.

On 20 September 1984 the respondent wrote a letter to the applicant stating:

"Seeing that you still refuse to pay my claim, I've taken the C following steps - photographs included.

I also intend writing a letter to every major newspaper 'letter page' in SA. Furthermore I'm having T-shirts printed with the slogan - 'Multiplan won't pay my claim; will they pay yours?'"

The photographs which accompanied the letter show the damaged motor vehicle with the words "Multiplan Insurance won't pay" D painted in large letters on its bonnet and each of its sides.

Upon receipt of the letter and photographs the applicant applied for and was granted a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause against orders:

(a)

interdicting her from having T-shirts manufactured with the slogan "Multiplan won't pay my claim; will E they pay yours?" or words to similar effect embossed thereon;

(b)

ordering her to remove the words "Multiplan Insurance won't pay" from the body of her motor vehicle or to cease displaying the motor vehicle in public;

(c)

interdicting her from writing to any newspaper any F defamatory articles of and concerning the applicant;

(d)

interdicting her from publishing or uttering any defamatory matter of and concerning the applicant;

(e)

ordering her to pay the costs of the application.

In opposing the confirmation of the rule counsel for the respondent, Mr Broster, suggested that the words painted on her G car related specifically to the damage to that car and therefore carried no defamatory innuendo. It may be accepted that the reference was to the applicant's refusal to pay for the damage to the respondent's car but it cannot be doubted that the words on the car and the threatened T-shirt slogan carry innuendos defamatory of the applicant. The clear implication is that the applicant repudiates legitimate claims H and does not honour its business obligations. In the launching affidavit the applicant's claims director avers that if the respondent is not restrained her actions will result in deleterious...