This is another matter where the court considered the onus and evidence necessary to be lead to establish proof of quantum of the insured’s claim again an insurer, arising out of a motor vehicle accident. There was no separation between merits and quantum. The insurer appealed the judgment, on the basis that the insured had not proved the quantum.
The insured claimed around R200 000, “being the reasonable and necessary repair cost of his motor vehicle to its pre-collision condition”. However, the insured did not present any evidence to establish that the cost of repairs was reasonable and necessary. The insured admitted, in cross-examination, that the amount was what he paid for the repairs, and was not necessarily what was reasonable or necessary.
The court stated that an expert witness was necessary to enable the trial court to make a finding to sustain the material facts pleaded by the insured, relating to quantum. The court could not merely admit the hearsay evidence of the insured, that the amount was reasonable, based on his alleged “truthfulness” as a witness. The actual payment could not automatically constitute a reasonable amount. The evidential value of whether the amount is reasonable depends on, for example, the credibility of the panelbeater.
Since no evidence was presented to establish quantum, the appeal court dismissed the insured’s claim.
King Price Insurance Company Limited v Muambadzi (A236/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 336 (9 April 2024)