Page 24 - Personal Underwriting Mandates & Guidelines - Binder product rules & addendums - Version 1

Motor Claims Procedures
2.6
2.5.1 There are 3 (three) types of documents which are deemed to be valid driver's licences, subject to certain limita ons and regula ons:
2.5.1.1 A driver's licence issued in a Prescribed territory;
2.5.1.2 A driver's licence issued in another country.
2.5.2 An Interna onal Driving Permit issued while the holder was not ordinarily, or permanently, resident in South Africa.
Any driver's licence issued in another country or territory which is a provisional licence, or any Interna onal Driving Permit, may not be used where passengers are conveyed for reward, and where a Professional Driving Permit (PrDP) is required.
Professional Driver's Permits (PRDP'S)
In terms of sec on 32 of the Act professional drivers are set elevated standards with regards to their medical condi on and previous driving convic ons and must apply for a PrDP every two years. The Act prohibits professional drivers from driving on public roads without a PrDP. Regula on 115 of the Act sets out the categories of drivers that require PrDP's.
2.6.1 The categorisa on is based upon two criteria:
2.6.1.1 The type of vehicle being driven; and
2.6.1.2 the use of the vehicle.
2.6.2 The driver of the following categories of vehicles, regardless of the use to which that vehicle is being put is required to have a PrDP:
2.6.2.1 A goods vehicle with a GVM of more than 3 500 kg
2.6.2.2 A breakdown vehicle
2.6.2.3 A bus
2.6.2.4 A minibus which exceeds 3 500 kg or is designed to carry more than 12 (twelve) people.
2.6.3 If a motor vehicle, regardless of the categorisa ons above is used for any of the following purposes then a PrDP is required:
2.6.3.1 Used for the conveyance of passengers for reward
2.6.3.2 A goods vehicle carrying dangerous goods
2.6.3.3 Any vehicle conveying 12 (twelve) or more persons including the driver.
The status of PrDP's was recently adjudicated upon in the case of Napier N.O. v Spearhead Rice Mills (Pty) Ltd 2002 (4) SA 530 WLD. The policy under review was a Mul mark III wording. A tow truck was involved in an accident whilst towing another vehicle but the driver of the breakdown vehicle did not have a PrDP. The insurers declined the claim to an indemnity and the ma er was originally heard in the Magistrate's Court. The court found for the Insured against the underwriter who then took the ma er on appeal. The driver of the tow truck did originally have a PrDP which he had simply failed to renew. On the wording of the Mul mark III policy it was argued that the PrDP was subject to periodic review and the mere failure to renew the licence did not disen tle the insured to an indemnity. The court held:
“....The gran ng of such permits (PrDP's) depends on stringent compliance with several requirements aimed at insuring the competence of applicants as drivers, for example medical cer ca on of their tness and insistence on not having been convicted of certain speci ed o ences.”
The court accordingly found that the PrDP was not a licence “subject to periodic renewal” and the failure to be in possession of a valid PrDP was a failure to be licensed. The decision is being taken on appeal but we do not think that it will be altered. Having said that, we therefore do not agree with the conten on that the issuing of PrDP's is merely a mechanism to collect tax. It is a mechanism that has been put in place to ensure that professional drivers adhere to an elevated set of standards and these relate to such driver's medical condi on and past driving experience. Therefore if a driver of an insured vehicle is required to be in possession of a PrDP and is not, we believe that he is not licensed in terms of the Act and such a claim may validly be declined.
Page | 22
Binder Claims Mandates and Guidelines – 2015/2016