With the benefit of hindsight, we should all rather insure through brokers, instead of direct insurers, but that hardly helps Tromp. Tromp, what exactly did you waive ? Surely, as you had no claim against your own insurer under the policy (you were covered for third party, fire & theft) you did not waive your right to be indemnified by your insurer against claims made against YOU by the third party? In South African law, waivers are very strictly applied. It has often been held in our law that only a waiver by a person with full appreciation and knowledge of their rights will be enforced. If your vehicle has been written off, the policy you have with your insurer automatically ends by operation of the law, because the subject matter, and purpose of the policy, no longer exists. My understanding is that you waived your current rights (to receive an indemnity) in order to obtain future benefits ( the no - claims bonuses) on a policy that could never have paid a no - claims bonus since it no longer existed when you signed the indemnity. In my view, it will be very difficult for the insurer to argue that your decision to sign the waiver, given this, was a properly informed decision, particularly if you advised the insurer that you were signing the indemnity to make sure that you retained your no claim bonus. What I am suggesting is that it was incumbent upon the insurer to clarify that you were not entitled to a no -claim bonus, in any event, since the policy had terminated.
