The claim of a drunk driver who lied in order to challenge an insurance company has been dismissed with costs by the Free State High Court.
Simon Mavela, a major male surveyor residing in Mthatha, Eastern Cape, formerly residing in Bethlehem, Free State, took Outsurance to court over repudiated claims.
He was involved in an accident with his Toyota Fortuner that was comprehensively insured by the insurance company. However, he committed a material breach of the insurance agreement, entitling it to reject the claim.
Charged with reckless drunk driving
After the accident, he was charged with reckless and negligent driving and driving under the influence of liquor in respect of the vehicle collision.
In 2021, the vehicle was damaged beyond economical repair. This happened in a collision on the R26 road between Hobhouse and Wepener in the Free State. He claimed that he was at a stop sign and he heard a bang from the back. In court Mavela further said there were potholes on the road.
However, the insurance company rejected his claim. It cited that Mavela had provided inaccurate, false and misleading information.
Outsurance Insurance Company Ltd, represented by Advocate Jansen van Vuuren, pertinently denied in its plea that Mavela complied with all his responsibilities in terms of the insurance agreement.
Lied about potholes, sobriety
According to their assessment, the accident scene does not have potholes.
During the pre-trial conference, Outsurance admitted that a vehicle collision occurred in which Mavela’s vehicle was damaged. Also, that Mavela carried the risk of loss, damage and destruction of the car. It also admitted that his vehicle was insured against damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. This was ‘subject to the terms and conditions contained in the facility document and schedule under policy’.
Mavela claimed that he had not touched liquor in two months before the accident. But police who found him at the accident scene revealed that there were beer bottles in the car. According to police, when they arrived on the scene, Mavela’s eyes were red and his breath had a smell of alcohol.
“There were tyre marks on the road that made a zigzag shape. And I was satisfied that he was driving under the influence of alcohol,” said Warrant Officer Tsotetsi.
The insurance company maintained that Mavela was driving the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Gave court false information
Judge Johannes Petrus Daffue said from the totality of the evidence it is apparent that Mavela materially failed to give true and complete information regarding the collision and from his own evidence, he persisted throughout with his false version.
“I am satisfied that Outsurance has proved the defences relied upon. Mavela provided false information. But furthermore, he drove his vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol at the time he caused the collision.
“He clearly did not comply with his contractual obligations when he filed his claim. Therefore, based on this defence as well, the claim should be dismissed with costs.”
