orangeblock

A sensible approach to third party insurance

06 July 2010 | Non-life | Motor | Gareth Stokes

One of the great things about the news service run by FAnews Online is the diverse knowledge of our readership. We received numerous responses to our recent newsletter on proposals for mandatory third party insurance in South Africa. One of these dedicated readers recalled that compulsory insurance had been levied on local drivers as early as the 1960s. “The insurance disc was the same size as the car licence disc and had to be affixed to the windscreen together with the licence disc, making it easy to police,” he said.

A quick visit to the Road Accident Fund (RAF) website confirms his hunch. Compulsory motor vehicle insurance was actually introduced in South Africa as early as 1942. “The Motor Vehicle Assurance Act 29 of 1942 was the first statute in South Africa, which provided for compulsory insurance to ensure that victims could recover damages, which were caused unlawfully by motor vehicles,” says the RAF. In 1965 – following the liquidation of a number of insurance companies – the Motor Vehicle Accident fund was formed to act as a re-insurer to companies which undertook this compulsory MVA insurance. And in 1986 – in line with the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 – the statutory annual premiums were abandoned in favour of a levy on fuel sold!

Do you want third party insurance or a revamped RAF?

“The RAF Act 56 of 1996 came into operation on 1 May 1997. The Act established the present Road Accident Fund whose object it is to pay compensation in accordance with applicable statutes for personal loss or damage wrongfully caused by the driving of motor vehicles.” These facts support that South African vehicle users already pay some form of ‘compulsory’ vehicle accident insurance disguised as a general tax on fuel. The RAF receives 72c from each litre of petrol and diesel sold in South Africa (per the 2010/11 national budget). We’re being hounded for additional funds because of gross mismanagement at the RAF over time. But this argument isn’t going to get us very far. If government has their mind set on receiving another payment for third party cover then we’d better put some thought into the best possible ‘second round’ implementation.

Examples from around the globe

South Africa can learn from countries where mandatory motor vehicle insurance has been in place for many years. The United Kingdom is one such country. All vehicles must be licensed and vehicle owners have to purchase and display proof of insurance at all times. But we should heed the warnings from this developed economy too. As many as two million UK vehicles remain uninsured despite legislative intervention, indicating the need for ongoing and comprehensive policing if such a solution is adopted.

Paul, also responding to our recent newsletter, commented after working in the UAE. “The UAE operate a system of compulsory full comprehensive motor insurance,” he says. Each time the motor vehicle license is renewed the driver has to produce a valid original insurance certificate not older than 30 days and valid for 13 months! The UAE uses the same administrative system to ensure drivers produce road-worthy certificates every three years – and motor vehicle owners must replace tyres, regardless of mileage, to pass this roadworthy!

Another reader told us how things work in Italy. In Italy you have to arrange third party insurance as a minimum when you purchase a motor vehicle. You can then opt to upgrade to third party fire and theft or full comprehensive insurance with your insurer. The insurer issues an original certificate of insurance, valid for one year only, which must be kept in the car at all times. A sticker is placed on the windscreen in a similar way to the vehicle license disc currently displayed in South Africa. Italy doesn’t allow monthly insurance payments at all!

The best way to collect third party payments

How should third party insurance be implemented and collected in South Africa? Adding another ‘tax’ to the fuel levy, for example, would be difficult to control, lead to wastage, abuse and corruption and pass the cost on to public who don’t necessarily own vehicles. Instead the ‘burden’ in the third party insurance case must shift to the consumer. One solution would be to introduce legislation that forces the consumer to purchase annual third party insurance and display proof on their windshield.

There have been complaints about the cost of such a solution, with the minister of transport suggesting third party insurance would have to consider the financial status of all citizens. FAnews Online readers dismissed his sentiments with contempt. The argument of affordability shouldn’t absolve a motor vehicle owner from insurance responsibility. If you have enough money to buy a car – the argument goes – then you should be able to afford a single annual premium for insurance. A reader offered this no-nonsense advice: “Insurance must be considered one of the expenses associated with owning and driving a car on South African roads.” There should be no excuse for driving an uninsured, unlicensed or un-roadworthy vehicle.

Another concern was that third party insurance at the vehicle licensing stage would lead to full comprehensive insured motorists paying a second insurance. South Africa should compromise as follows: A tamper-proof ‘insurance’ disk (with security features) should be issued by the vehicle licensing authority as proof of motor vehicle insurance at the same time as the vehicle’s license disk is renewed. This ‘insurance’ disk would be issued only if: The motor vehicle owner provided documentary proof the vehicle in question is comprehensively insured OR upon the vehicle owner paying a ‘single premium’ for one year’s third party insurance.

Editor’s thoughts: It shouldn’t take rocket science to design a compulsory third party insurance system. The challenge is in implementation. Given government’s rather lacklustre performance at vehicle licensing departments – and the appalling ‘on again / off again’ AARTO system – there is plenty of cause for concern. Do you think government is capable of implementing and administering a mandatory third party insurance system? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Gerrie, 12 Jul 2010
As with virtualy al parastatals in this country, the RAF is also guilty of mismanagement and the qeustion arises whether we still need them with the limited benefits the public is receiving. The RAF should have been privitised a long time ago, but this is not likeley to happen as some board members and especialy the CEO are receiving huge amounts as remuneration whist the victims of motorvehicle accidents have to wait and wait for their compensation. The only solution to this situation is indeed compulsory motor vehicle insurance. Of course the levey on feul must be abondend then. This will prevent the fatcats from laying their greedy paws on the public's money. I mean, the RAF says thet want to give all accident victims free and propper medical care on State Hospitals! (According to the new ammendment before Parliament) In other words, the goal posts are shifting all the time. Free medical care in a State Hospital? Come on! The RAF should concentrate on the citizens of this country and not be involved in neigbouring countries. It is us, the citizens of this country who have been paying the levy on fuel for many years, and yet our benefits are being depleted by a rate second to none.
Report Abuse
Added by Ben Tonkin, 09 Jul 2010
The Multimark IV project was not "scuppered" at all. There was never an intention to develop a Multimark IV, merely to update MM III. In 2006 and 2007 the SAIA commercial technical committee met several times and we agreed certain updates, mainly because the value of our currency had changed. For example the Money minor limit of R1 500 went to R3 000. In addition several errors that had prevailed since 1997 were corrected. Then, because of the fear of collusion and "competition", it was agreed that insurers were free to use the changes, some of the changes - or none of them, as they like. Etana applied most of them, while Zurich has used the MM III circa 2003 wording, with uncorrected errors and old limits. AIG, as it was, developed their own Multi Armour policy based on MM III, but with their own flavour and extensions not in other products.
Report Abuse
Added by Pet Beyer, 06 Jul 2010
Without even going into details my answer is NO NO
Report Abuse
Added by Leo van der Meer, 06 Jul 2010
Having been involved in short term insurance since 1965 and claims since 1968, I am experiencing a feeling of deja. Compulsory insurance has been the subject of periodic discussion since even before my time in insurance 45 years ago. It is important is to emphasise that the "compulsory" insurance in terms of the 1942,1972,and 1986 Acts only covered bodily injuri or death to third parties. For the record, implementation of the 1942 Act was delayed by WW II and only came into effect in 1946. In my view it is absolutely imperative that any compulsory [balance of] third party material damage liability is kept out of the government's hands. The reasons are clear from the article! This would, in the words of the late BJV ,"be too gasthly to contemplate". The practice of ensuring that the minimum RTA [Road Traffic Act] cover is in force in Zimbabwe and several other countries is disarmingly simple. On renewal of the vehicle licence [at any post office], proof of insurance is to be provided and the licence disc is stamped on the reverse side with the words" third party". Thus a valid licence disc is prime facie proof of insurance. With modern technology and a national insurance database, something similar should not be impossible to implement with the necessary security built in. This would also prevent a prolifiration of discs on the windscreen! There is no argument that compulsory balance of third party cover is sorely needed but setting the level of premium may well be difficult and politically sensitive. I well rememer the public uproar and outcry when MVA premiums were increased from R13 to R15 around 1968! The short term insurerance industry has in more than 25 years, not even managed to agree on a common system of information sharing but a comprehensive statistical data base is essential for determining a viable premium. That is, if the current legal restraints and fears on "collusion" and percieved non-competitive behaviour such as what scuppered the Multimark IV project are to be ignored. Onless, with correct, efficient and reasonable legislation in place and cover provided through the private sector, compulsory balance of third party insurance will continue to remain a desirable but unattainable goal.
Report Abuse
Added by fred, 06 Jul 2010
It will only create a new meganism for people to unlawfull put their hands on.
Report Abuse
Added by Petso, 06 Jul 2010
Editor, Please refer to an e-mail I sent you last week. It is very interesting that RAF did not mention that they are part of the parties in the RSA government and SADC Secretariat on transport who are looking at harmonising the RAF, MVA (Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia) with compulsory third party insurance. This is already at an advanced stage and the model is already in place in SADC countries that are part of the COMESA Yellow Card scheme. More research on this article could help your readers, Dear Editor.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

A sensible approach to third party insurance
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer
FAnews June 2026
THE LATEST EDITION FANEWS MAGAZINE