Claim number: ***

On 9 September 2026 at approximately 18:54, I was travelling home on the N1 between the Hotel Street Bridge and the Emalahleni off-ramp. At the relevant time, a truck, the OUTsurance-insured vehicle and my vehicle were travelling in the same general direction.

The OUTsurance-insured vehicle was travelling in the same lane as the truck and was attempting to move into the lane in which I was travelling.

The sequence of events, as I understand and witnessed it, was that the truck first collided with the back of the OUTsurance-insured vehicle. Following that impact, the OUTsurance-insured vehicle collided with my vehicle on the driver's side door.

My vehicle was therefore involved in a three-vehicle collision.

The fact that the truck initially collided with the OUTsurance-insured vehicle does not, in my view, establish that the OUTsurance-insured vehicle was automatically free from liability for the subsequent collision with my vehicle. The circumstances leading to the insured vehicle being in my lane and the manner in which it attempted to enter that lane must also be considered.

On 10 September 2026, I spoke with the owner of the vehicle insured by OUTsurance, as well as the employer/boss of the lady who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The owner acknowledged the incident and advised me that he would submit a claim for the damage to his vehicle and that I could pursue my vehicle damage through his third-party insurance.

The owner subsequently submitted his claim on 11 September 2026.

He was cooperative and communicated with me regarding the claim. At approximately 15:23, he provided me with the relevant claim number and advised me to contact OUTsurance's legal department regarding my third-party claim.

I subsequently submitted my third-party claim on 15 September 2026.

On 15 September 2026, I received an acknowledgment from Mr Lancelot Segola confirming receipt of my application and advising that the process would take approximately 4–6 weeks before an outcome would be provided. However, on 16 September 2026, I received communication from Mr Segola stating that he had attempted to contact me but that I was allegedly unreachable.

I returned his call using my work landline.

During that conversation, Mr Segola informed me that my third-party claim had been unsuccessful.

The explanation provided was essentially that the OUTsurance client had first been struck by the truck and that the OUTsurance client subsequently collided with my vehicle on the driver's side door.

I was further told, in substance, that:

“The truck is the one that hit you because if he didn't hit our client then your car would not have been hit.”

I was also told that, when driving, I should have left sufficient space between vehicles to avoid such an event. I respectfully dispute this reasoning.

There is video footage of the incident which has been shared with OUTsurance. The video is particularly important because it shows the traffic circumstances immediately before and during the collision.

I understand from Mr Segola that OUTsurance's position is that its insured was entitled to stop in the position shown in the video because the driver did not want to follow the other vehicles proceeding towards the off-ramp and instead intended to move into the convoy/lane in which I was travelling.

In particular, the video appears to show that the OUTsurance-insured vehicle was the vehicle attempting to move from its lane into the lane occupied by my vehicle.

I further understand that the insured vehicle had been indicating from approximately 18:53, apparently signalling an intention to move into the lane.

The fact that a vehicle indicates does not, by itself, establish that it is entitled to enter another lane irrespective of the position and movement of vehicles already travelling in that lane.

The critical question is whether the manoeuvre could safely be executed and whether the driver exercised the necessary care before moving or stopping in the path of vehicles already travelling in that lane?

One of the reasons given to me was that I should have maintained enough space between my vehicle and the vehicle in front of me to avoid the collision. I respectfully disagree that this explanation adequately addresses what the video shows.

The video shows that there was a vehicle in front of my vehicle and another vehicle behind my vehicle.

Neither of those vehicles collided with the OUTsurance-insured vehicle.

This is important because it demonstrates that the circumstances cannot simply be reduced to an assumption that the truck driver was is the one that caused the entire accident.