The case arose from business interruption claims submitted by aviation training entities (43 Air School, PTC, and JOC - collectively the "43 Air School Group") to AIG under an insurance policy following the COVID-19 pandemic. 43 Air School submitted two initial claims (May 19, 2020 for the period April 26-30, 2020, and June 9, 2020 for May 1-31, 2020) based on an outbreak of COVID-19 within 25 km of its Port Alfred premises on April 25, 2020. AIG repudiated these claims on July 1, 2020 and March 23, 2021, alleging no causal connection between the local outbreak and the losses. The respondents then brought a high court application claiming that AIG was liable for business interruption losses for the period March 27, 2020 to May 31, 2020, adding a third claim by 43 Air School relating to COVID-19 outbreaks near its Lanseria premises and near PTC and JOC premises in Gqeberha. COVID-19 outbreaks occurred within 25 km of Gqeberha premises on March 21, 2020, Lanseria premises on March 27, 2020, and Port Alfred premises on April 25, 2020. The national lockdown was in effect from March 26 to April 30, 2020. The policy provided business interruption cover for "outbreak of infectious or contagious disease within a radius of 25 km of the Premises".
1. The appeal succeeded in respect of the third claim of 43 Air School and the claims of PTC and JOC. 2. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the first and second claims of 43 Air School. 3. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal. 4. The high court order was amended to: (a) declare AIG liable to compensate 43 Air School for its two claims submitted on May 19, 2020 (for April 26-30, 2020) and June 9, 2020 (for May 1-31, 2020); (b) direct AIG to engage 43 Air School meaningfully to quantify the monetary value of these claims; (c) dismiss the application otherwise with each party bearing its own costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) An insurance policy covering multiple entities is composite (not joint) where each entity has a separate and distinct interest in the subject matter of the insurance, even if the policy appears in one document with one premium amount. The nature of the interests insured, not the form of the policy document, determines whether a policy is joint or composite. (2) Where an insurance policy explicitly makes compliance with reporting conditions a condition precedent to liability, stating that "no claim shall be payable unless" those conditions are complied with, the insurer's liability is suspended until compliance occurs. Court proceedings cannot constitute compliance with contractual notice requirements. (3) In business interruption insurance covering losses from notifiable disease outbreaks within a specified radius, the government's regulatory response to that disease (including lockdown measures) forms an integral part of the insured peril itself, not merely a consequence of it. The government response and the disease outbreak are "part and parcel" of the insured peril and "inextricably connected." (4) For causation in such policies, once a notifiable disease outbreak occurs within the specified radius, both factual and legal causation are established where business interruption results from the disease and the government's response to it - the insured does not have to prove the local outbreak alone (independent of government response) caused the loss. (5) The principles of contractual interpretation apply to insurance contracts, requiring courts to consider language, context, and purpose in a unitary exercise, adopting commercially sensible meanings over insensible ones.
The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) It noted with apparent surprise that AIG maintained its causation argument even after the Guardrisk decision had clearly established the relevant legal principles. (2) The Court cautioned that English authorities, particularly the FCA cases, must be referred to with caution as they were decided on different policy wordings and agreed facts. (3) The Court observed that the high court erred in finding the respondents shared facilities when there was no evidence of this. (4) The Court commented that rejection of a claim under a policy is not necessarily a repudiation of the policy itself. (5) The Court noted it was a matter of "common sense" that notice of a claim should be given to an insurer before resorting to litigation. (6) The Court observed that when 43 Air School reported its first two claims, it did not report or purport to report its third claim or the claims of PTC and JOC. (7) Regarding costs, the Court expressed the view that the mixed success did not justify a costs order in the appellant's favor and that it was "more appropriate" for parties to bear their own costs, though this appears to be part of the dispositional reasoning rather than pure obiter.
This judgment is significant in South African insurance law as it applies and extends the principles established in Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v Café Chameleon CC regarding COVID-19 business interruption claims. The case clarifies several important principles: (1) It distinguishes between joint and composite insurance policies, holding that where insureds have separate interests in the subject matter (e.g., separate gross profits), the policy is composite even if contained in one document with a single premium. (2) It confirms that government responses to notifiable diseases form part of the insured peril itself, not merely a consequence - thus the national lockdown and local disease outbreak are "inextricably connected" for causation purposes. (3) It enforces strict compliance with reporting conditions as conditions precedent to insurer liability, holding that court proceedings cannot substitute for contractual notice requirements. (4) It demonstrates the courts' approach to interpreting insurance policies relating to pandemic-related business interruption, adopting a commercially sensible construction that gives effect to the risk-transferring purpose of insurance. The decision provided clarity during the COVID-19 pandemic on when insurers would be liable for business interruption claims based on local disease outbreaks combined with national regulatory responses.
Explore 2 related cases • Click to navigate