We have previously dealt with the vast array of challenges security service providers face within the context of its compliance framework.
Yet another challenge was added to the private security sector in addition to the rising costs of Provident Funds, Union Interference and Collective Main Agreements, this time from the very same persons/institutions these service providers endeavour to protect.
We became increasingly aware of end-users of security services treating security services as a substitute for its own insurance.
Security services are, as a general rule, not a substitute for insurance, but rather ancillary to insurance in the strategy to mitigate one’s losses. Insuring one’s possessions against losses has and will always be universally viewed as a prudent financial strategy.
In some cases, security services, for instance armed reaction, will be required by insurers before providing cover to most individuals and businesses.
Security Services, by its very nature especially within the South African context, can simply never be viewed as a substitute for carefully structured insurance cover.
End users of security services should be aware that Security Service Providers will not legally be liable for all damages associated with crime or other losses, whilst their insurance products, when properly structured, will provide cover for such losses.
Endeavours to recover damages from security service providers will additionally result in protracted and expensive litigation whilst claiming from your own insurers will be less painful. Your insurance company may very well decide to recover these damages from the security service provider at their expense in any event, without you being exposed to legal costs and protracted litigation.
The function of Security Services is to minimise and manage the risk of losses associated with criminal activity, which, is already an uphill battle in crime-ridden South Africa.
Extending responsibility for full indemnification to Security Service Providers will simply lead to vast increases in the costs of security and protracted costly litigation.
Substituting your insurance cover with the rendering of security services is not only foolish but is done at the end users peril.
