Does “accidental loss** include loss as a consequence of theft?
The defendant has a two-trenched defence against the claimed obligation to indemnify the plaintiff. Firstiy, it argues that loss of an article as a consequence of theft is not an “accidental loss” contemplated under the multi-risks section of the policy. The fall-back argument is that, in cases of loss as a consequence of theft, the clause operates to exclude liability if the insured fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft and that, on the facts, the plaintiff has failed to do so. As regards the first defence: A similar view was initially taken on the pleadings but later abandoned by counsel and dismissed by King J in Paterson v Aegis Insurance Co Ltd, 1989 (3) SA 478 (C) at 48ID: “Although it was initially in issue it was conceded at the trial -and correctly so – that the circumstances of the loss (i.e. theft) constituted an accident and that accordingly the disappearance of the chain was an accidental loss within the context of the indemnity provided by the all risks sect
