DT
Desmond T
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2018
06 Feb 2026, 14:08
King Price offered 2400 as third party payOut. Their client has a 3 month expired license disk.
King price client wrecked my car on 28th of November she was driving with an expired license disk. Just the robot I had the right of way and a witness. This was their calculations Offer calculation:
Your Market Value: R 106 400.00 Our Repairs: R 82 053.55
Your estimated Salvage: R 47 000.00
= R 59 400.00 – 15% VAT = R 82 053.55 – 15% VAT
= R 51 652.17 * 60 % (KP Client negligence) = R 71 350.91 * 40% (Your negligence)
= R 30 991.30 (Due to you) = R 28 540.37 (Due to KP client)
Grand Total: R 30 991.30 – R 28 540.37
= R 2 450.94 (Payable to you)
===
Which means I get 2400 for my wrecked car by a car that had a license disk that expired in August, 3 months before the accident.
Helpful (0)
Replies (6)0
Replies (6)DT
Desmond T's updateReviewer Update
06 Feb 2026, 14:20They said I was negligent because I did not get out of the way of their client who was turning *******ly. Where was I supposed to turn to? Other stationery cars that are waiting at the robots? What you are doing to me is ********.
DT
Desmond T's update06 Feb 2026, 14:20
Reviewer Update
They said I was negligent because I did not get out of the way of their client who was turning *******ly. Where was I supposed to turn to? Other stationery cars that are waiting at the robots? What you are doing to me is ********.
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
06 Feb 2026, 14:53Hi Desmond,
Please remember that a third-party claim is considered a legal claim and is not a normal insurance claim, thus legal principles are app****.
To determine what the client is “legally responsible” to pay for, consideration needs to be given to the obligations placed on a person in control of a vehicle traveling on the public roads as derived from the principles contained in the Law of Delict. In accordance with these principles the action of each party involved in any specific incident (irrespective whether you had right of way or not) is measured against that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Should the person’s action in the incident deviate from the action of a reasonable person under the same circumstance, the person’s action is seen as negligent.
Negligence may be deduced on a balance of probabilities from the circumstances of an occurrence.
The action of the “reasonable person” is described in the “Motor Law, Law of Third Party Compensation” by HB Klopper from which we quote:
“The standard used to judge the conduct of a person is that of the reasonable person or bonus paterfamilias. If the principles of negligence are app**** to a motor vehicle accident, the court places itself as far as is possible in the place of the driver at the time of the accident. The conduct of the driver is then compared to that of a reasonable person under the then prevailing circumstances. A driver will be negligent if a reasonable person/driver would have acted differently if the damage caused were reasonably foreseeable and preventable.”
Therefore in this instance an apportionment was app**** hence the reason for only a percentage of the claim being approved.
Considering how the accident occurred our legal team are of the opinion that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
Please remember that a third-party claim is considered a legal claim and is not a normal insurance claim, thus legal principles are app****.
To determine what the client is “legally responsible” to pay for, consideration needs to be given to the obligations placed on a person in control of a vehicle traveling on the public roads as derived from the principles contained in the Law of Delict. In accordance with these principles the action of each party involved in any specific incident (irrespective whether you had right of way or not) is measured against that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Should the person’s action in the incident deviate from the action of a reasonable person under the same circumstance, the person’s action is seen as negligent.
Negligence may be deduced on a balance of probabilities from the circumstances of an occurrence.
The action of the “reasonable person” is described in the “Motor Law, Law of Third Party Compensation” by HB Klopper from which we quote:
“The standard used to judge the conduct of a person is that of the reasonable person or bonus paterfamilias. If the principles of negligence are app**** to a motor vehicle accident, the court places itself as far as is possible in the place of the driver at the time of the accident. The conduct of the driver is then compared to that of a reasonable person under the then prevailing circumstances. A driver will be negligent if a reasonable person/driver would have acted differently if the damage caused were reasonably foreseeable and preventable.”
Therefore in this instance an apportionment was app**** hence the reason for only a percentage of the claim being approved.
Considering how the accident occurred our legal team are of the opinion that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
King Price Insurance's reply06 Feb 2026, 14:53
Official
Hi Desmond,
Please remember that a third-party claim is considered a legal claim and is not a normal insurance claim, thus legal principles are app****.
To determine what the client is “legally responsible” to pay for, consideration needs to be given to the obligations placed on a person in control of a vehicle traveling on the public roads as derived from the principles contained in the Law of Delict. In accordance with these principles the action of each party involved in any specific incident (irrespective whether you had right of way or not) is measured against that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Should the person’s action in the incident deviate from the action of a reasonable person under the same circumstance, the person’s action is seen as negligent.
Negligence may be deduced on a balance of probabilities from the circumstances of an occurrence.
The action of the “reasonable person” is described in the “Motor Law, Law of Third Party Compensation” by HB Klopper from which we quote:
“The standard used to judge the conduct of a person is that of the reasonable person or bonus paterfamilias. If the principles of negligence are app**** to a motor vehicle accident, the court places itself as far as is possible in the place of the driver at the time of the accident. The conduct of the driver is then compared to that of a reasonable person under the then prevailing circumstances. A driver will be negligent if a reasonable person/driver would have acted differently if the damage caused were reasonably foreseeable and preventable.”
Therefore in this instance an apportionment was app**** hence the reason for only a percentage of the claim being approved.
Considering how the accident occurred our legal team are of the opinion that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
Please remember that a third-party claim is considered a legal claim and is not a normal insurance claim, thus legal principles are app****.
To determine what the client is “legally responsible” to pay for, consideration needs to be given to the obligations placed on a person in control of a vehicle traveling on the public roads as derived from the principles contained in the Law of Delict. In accordance with these principles the action of each party involved in any specific incident (irrespective whether you had right of way or not) is measured against that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Should the person’s action in the incident deviate from the action of a reasonable person under the same circumstance, the person’s action is seen as negligent.
Negligence may be deduced on a balance of probabilities from the circumstances of an occurrence.
The action of the “reasonable person” is described in the “Motor Law, Law of Third Party Compensation” by HB Klopper from which we quote:
“The standard used to judge the conduct of a person is that of the reasonable person or bonus paterfamilias. If the principles of negligence are app**** to a motor vehicle accident, the court places itself as far as is possible in the place of the driver at the time of the accident. The conduct of the driver is then compared to that of a reasonable person under the then prevailing circumstances. A driver will be negligent if a reasonable person/driver would have acted differently if the damage caused were reasonably foreseeable and preventable.”
Therefore in this instance an apportionment was app**** hence the reason for only a percentage of the claim being approved.
Considering how the accident occurred our legal team are of the opinion that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
DT
Desmond T's updateReviewer Update
06 Feb 2026, 15:05Where was I supposed to go? Am I supposed to know that your client will do an ******* turn? What is the reasonable thing that I was supposed to do? I am going to social media with your response.
DT
Desmond T's update06 Feb 2026, 15:05
Reviewer Update
Where was I supposed to go? Am I supposed to know that your client will do an ******* turn? What is the reasonable thing that I was supposed to do? I am going to social media with your response.
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
06 Feb 2026, 15:14Should you dispute the outcome you may contact the legal department of your own insurer for further advise.
King Price Insurance's reply06 Feb 2026, 15:14
Official
Should you dispute the outcome you may contact the legal department of your own insurer for further advise.
DT
Desmond T's updateReviewer Update
10 Feb 2026, 20:19So you are saying I should lose my car because of your client and she gets her car fixed. You are the devil shame.
DT
Desmond T's update10 Feb 2026, 20:19
Reviewer Update
So you are saying I should lose my car because of your client and she gets her car fixed. You are the devil shame.
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
11 Feb 2026, 08:21Should you dispute the outcome you may contact the legal department of your own insurer for further advise.
King Price Insurance's reply11 Feb 2026, 08:21
Official
Should you dispute the outcome you may contact the legal department of your own insurer for further advise.