Road users in South Africa warned of the 20km/h rule
Motorists in South Africa are being warned that driving too fast can carry serious financial consequences when it comes to insurance claims.
This warning comes from Edite Teixeira-McKinon, Lead Ombud of the Non-life Insurance Division at the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO).
She noted that many drivers underestimate how insurers assess speed-related accidents, and one of these is what she referred to as the “20km/h rule”.
She explained that this rule means that exceeding the national road limit by 20km/h may result in the denial of insurance claims for accidents.
South Africa continues to grapple with one of the highest road death tolls on the African continent, and speeding remains a central driver of the crisis.
Teixeira-McKinon stressed that each collision not only contributes to rising repair costs but ultimately feeds into higher premiums for all policyholders.
When speeding is found to be the cause of an accident, Teixeira-McKinon first explained that insurers often invoke the ‘due care’ exclusion to reject claims outright.
This clause requires policyholders to act reasonably to prevent losses and damage. Yet this exclusion clause is not always correctly applied.
She highlighted a recent case handled by her office involving a driver who claimed he lost control of his vehicle while swerving to avoid a pothole.
The incident occurred on a bend, and the vehicle mounted the pavement. The insurer rejected the claim, citing a standard policy clause requiring drivers to take reasonable care to avoid accidents.
An accident reconstruction expert found no evidence of a pothole and determined that the vehicle had accelerated from 61km/h to 71km/h while navigating the bend, exceeding the critical speed for that curve.
Relying on this expert analysis, the insurer argued that this demonstrated reckless behaviour.
Teixeira-McKinon’s office disagreed. She explained that while the driver had been speeding, this did not automatically amount to recklessness.
“To prove recklessness, the insurer had to show the driver deliberately or intentionally caused the accident,” she said.
In other words, the driver foresaw the possibility of losing control of the vehicle whilst executing the bend at 71km/h and recklessly reconciled himself to this possibility.
In this instance, she found that the driver’s conduct amounted to negligence rather than recklessness.
Some insurers have a speed limit
“Speed alone does not equate to recklessness,” she said, and noted that being 11km/h over the limit was insufficient to justify a full rejection under the ‘due care’ clause. The insurer was subsequently advised to settle the claim, which it did.
However, she warned that not all cases will have the same outcome. Some insurance policies contain a far stricter provision—commonly referred to as the 20km/h rule.
This excludes cover entirely if a driver exceeds the speed limit by more than 20km/h. Unlike the general ‘due care’ clause, this exclusion must be clearly disclosed to policyholders before they take out the policy.
In another case, a driver travelling at 114km/h in a 60km/h zone had his claim rejected under this rule. The insurer relied on vehicle tracking data to prove the vehicle’s speed at the time of the incident.
The driver disputed the accuracy of the tracking data and claimed he may have swerved to avoid an object in the road. However, he could not provide evidence to support his version of events or recall exactly what had happened.
“The insurer needed to only demonstrate what the speed limit on the road was and that the complainant exceeded the speed limit by more than 20km/h,” Teixeira-McKinon said.
Given the available evidence, her office found that the insurer had met this requirement.
“Considering the speed limit on the road and the speed at which the complainant had travelled before the accident, the Non-life Insurance Division was satisfied that the insurer had discharged its onus in respect of the rejection reason,” she said.
Loading ...