Legal guard taken to court
Mpho Mokwape | Friday January 15, 2016 15:41
One client, Onkemetse Medupe, through a legal suit has accused the legal insurance company for breaching the legal expenses insurance contract alleging they refused him to engage his own legal representation away from the one provided by the company on their panel of attorneys.
Through a notice of motion filed on December 4, 2015 by his external attorney, Ofentse Khumomotse, Medupe said the company’s refusal to give consent to appoint attorney of own choice and rather availing internal attorneys breached the contract entered between the two parties.
According to documents filed, he alleges that the company breached the contract of legal expenses by refusing to give him written consent to appoint an attorney of choice and also has unlawful structural rates that put other lawyers outside the company at odds with their clients.
He argues that the acts were unfair in the sense that the attorneys of choice wound never allow to be told as to how they should charge for their services rendered.
The documents read: “The company’s so called panel of attorneys who are paid on a monthly retainer basis is illegal and amounts to uncompetitive behaviour, and the rates structure is illegal as it has fixed an hourly rate at P450 which then cuts out attorneys who are not prepared to allow the company to regulate their fees for work done.
According to the documents, sometime in 2010 Medupe entered into a written agreement for legal services expenses cover with the company resulting in a legal expenses insurance contract.
The contract stated that the legal expenses cover was up to P60,000 and that the client will not instruct any external attorney without the prior written consent of the underwriting manager, and that he was to pay monthly premium of P64.95 per month.
Medupe, who stated in the documents that he duly performed his obligations in terms of the agreement and even gave notice about wanting attorney of choice, said the company had failed him.
He further explained that sometime in August 2015, he submitted a claim with the company to be covered and also to be allowed to appoint his own attorney.
“Despite the panel of attorneys agreeing to send my case to my attorney of choice, the company has failed, refused and neglected to give me a written consent to appoint my attorney,” he said.
As a result he approached the court seeking an order declaring among others that the company’s tariff structure was unreasonable, unlawful and illegal as it impedes her from getting the services of an attorney of choice.
Further he wants the order to declare that the company’s so called panel of attorneys was unlawful and uncompetitive as it limits her choice and enjoyment of contractual rights to a few attorneys.
“An order declaring the company to give me written consent to instruct attorney of my own choice at an hourly rate agreed between me and my attorney and for disbursements at the rate normally charged by the appointed attorney to his clients.
The order to also direct the company to cover for legal expenses for services rendered by my attorney to a limit of P60,000 to the exclusion of any amount incurred thereafter as agreed on the contract,” read the documents.
Meanwhile the company has also filed a notice of motion dated December 16, 2015 to defend through their attorney Shemah Dube.
The company said the allegations were untrue arguing that they had granted the client consent to engage his preferred attorney on November 27, 2015 therefore his allegations were baseless and brought in bad faith.
“We deny that we have breached the contract in anyway as we have performed all our obligations in terms of the contract,” reads the document.