Suzanne Booyens

完整简历

Suzanne is a South African-qualified Attorney and Notary with both local and international experience in insurance law, particularly in the property and assets space.

She returned to South Africa in mid 2024 after practising in London, bringing with her valuable international exposure.

She holds a Master’s Degree in Insurance Law (2023), awarded with merit, during which she developed a strong interest in reinsurance law and international insurance disputes. This interest continues to inform her growing practice.

Suzanne primarily advises insurers on complex coverage disputes involving property damage and business interruption, and she has notable experience in construction-related claims, recovery actions, and the drafting and interpretation of policy wordings.

相关经验

• Assisting with investigating and advising UK insurers on whether the “forcible and violent entry” exclusion applied in a theft claim.
• Assisting with advice to a UK insurer on the prospects of a recovery against contractors following a fire to its insured locomotive in Rotterdam.
• Misrepresentation of construction of flats –  assisting with advice to a UK insurer on whether the proportionate reduction remedy in terms of the UK Insurance Act, 2015 could be applied.
• Policy interpretation – assisting a South African insurer with a reinsurance agreement dispute on whether Covid fell within its “events cancellation” clause.
• Brokers negligence – assisted in a matter wherein the Western Cape High Court ruled that the broker was negligent as it did not advise the insured regarding the proper quantification of the insured value of a commercial property.
• Domestic property damage – assisting a South African insurer with a recovery against a local municipality due to its failure to properly document a main waterline under the insured’s residential property.
• Recovery on disclaimer notices – successfully assisted a South African insurer in the Pretoria High Court where the insured vehicle was stolen from a workshop where it was left for repairs. The third party relied on its disclaimer notices as a defense.
• Reinsurance – Assist a local reinsurer in determining whether the “follow the fortunes” principle should apply. Judgement was obtained in Burkina Faso however the main reason for the adverse judgement was due to the original insurer not complying with the CIMA Code.
• Reinsurance – Provided advise to a local reinsurer to determine whether it could claim under its retrocession agreement following the Taiwan Earthquakes. The main issue for determination was whether various factories of the original insured could be seen as one or various locations for the purposes of aggregation.