South Africa’s private security sector has grown into a R45 billion powerhouse, deploying more than 609 000 active security officers nationwide and vastly outnumbering the country’s estimated 140 000 to 150 000 sworn police officers.
Yet despite its scale, many security providers and their clients may be operating under a dangerous assumption: that traditional public liability insurance will protect them against the increasingly complex risks arising from modern security operations.
According to Michael Salant, attorney and senior risk advisor at Econorisk Broker Consultants, traditional public liability insurance is principally structured around legal liability for bodily injury and property damage. It therefore may not, without appropriate extensions or specialist cover, address the full range of liabilities arising from modern security environments.
“Security companies operate in an environment where a single operational failure can have serious consequences,” Salant says. “A guard allows the wrong person onto a property, an armed response goes wrong, a person is unlawfully detained, or an employee abuses the access entrusted to them, and the security provider can face substantial civil liability.”
“South African courts have repeatedly demonstrated just how far that liability can extend. The critical question is not whether liability exists, but whether the organisation’s insurance programme is designed to respond appropriately when that liability arises.”
Growing court scrutiny
The issue is becoming increasingly relevant based on these precedent-setting cases:
• In a landmark 2019 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment (SCA1052/2018), the court held a private security company vicariously liable after an employee used the access, authority and trust created through his employment to commit robbery and murder. Although the crime was committed entirely for the employee’s own purposes, the court found that the employment relationship had created a material risk that the employee was able to exploit. “This judgment remains one of the clearest illustrations that, in appropriate circumstances, a security provider’s liability can extend even to intentional criminal acts committed by an employee,” Salant points out.
• And in the Constitutional Court judgment Loureiro and Others v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd CCT 32/12, a security provider was held liable after a guard admitted criminals posing as police officers, leading to a robbery. The case underscored the significant financial consequences that can arise from operational failures within security environments.
“Businesses are often unaware of the distinction between traditional public liability insurance and the more specialised liability protections required within the private security sector,” Salant notes.
“Standard public liability policies are designed to address bodily injury, property damage and premises related incidents, whereas the exposures faced by modern security companies, including failures to protect, wrongful arrest, employee dishonesty, professional errors and omissions, cyber incidents and privacy related liabilities, may require specialist consideration and dedicated risk transfer solutions.”
Beyond traditional security
The challenge is becoming more pronounced as security firms expand beyond traditional guarding functions.
“Security providers are operating in increasingly sophisticated surveillance environments,” he says. “Artificial intelligence, automated licence plate recognition systems, cameras, drones, digital monitoring platforms and large volumes of personal information that fall under POPIA are now part of everyday operations. A surveillance error, inaccurate identification, unlawful detention, privacy breach or cyber incident can create significant financial, operational and reputational consequences. These are risks many organisations underestimate until faced with a claim or legal challenge.”
Risk transfer begins with understanding the exposure
The Consumer Protection Act has also limited the effectiveness of disclaimer clauses in many consumer transactions, particularly where contractual terms may be considered unfair, unreasonable or inconsistent with public policy. “Businesses cannot simply rely on disclaimer notices as an effective risk management strategy,” Salant says. “The solution is not merely purchasing additional insurance, but understanding the legal, contractual and operational liabilities that are being assumed.”
The bigger picture
Brett Schultz, managing director of Econorisk Broker Consultants, says the legal developments highlighted by Salant reflect a broader trend in South Africa.
“Security providers today are not just placing guards on sites; they are operating sophisticated technology platforms, managing sensitive data, assuming complex contractual obligations and delivering critical frontline services. As those responsibilities evolve, so do the associated legal, financial and reputational risks.”
Schultz urges buyers to look beyond the price tag and audit the legal, regulatory and risk resilience frameworks of their security partners before an uninsured claim forces the issue.
“The security sector plays a vital role in protecting South African businesses, infrastructure and communities - but without updated liability structures and specialist advisory support, operational growth is exposing both providers and their clients to uninsurable risk.”
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd. | All Rights Reserved.
printer friendly version