Free Steeped in Blood by David Klatzow Page B

to it,’ and then added, ‘I may concede, though, that he may have used a cigarette lighter!’
    After a hard three weeks in court, judgment was given against the insurance company. The matter was taken on appeal, and was won in the court of appeal before three judges. The judges were quite complimentary about my evidence. In their judgment, they said, ‘While Klatzow may have been rather unorthodox in his approach and whilst he may have been a little over-enthusiastic, he was well qualified to speak and his views merited serious consideration.’ I agree with the judges’ opinion.
    Maritime & General Insurance Co. v Sky Unit Engineering clearly illustrates the role of an expert witness, as well as the pitfalls that can occur when an expert is expected to act as a hired gun, as was the London expert in this matter. It has since become a leading case on the duties of the expert witness and his or her obligation to the court. Many dilemmas confront the expert witness. The client who briefs you expects that you will act in his best interests, but this is not where the expert witness’s duty lies. His or her responsibility to the court is not to mislead the judge with science. Often, the scientific truth will imply that the client’s case is bad, and that on the expert evidence it would be a mistake for the client to call you as a witness. Clients and their attorneys do not like this.
    The claims manager of the insurance company SA Eagle, a man by the name of Jimmy McIntosh, was often quoted as saying, ‘If you work against me, you will never work for me,’ which epitomisesthe thinking so prevalent in the industry. Jimmy has long since retired and was in the Ombudsman’s office for a while. I have grown to like and respect him as I have mellowed with age, but I have never understood his dictum. This belief of the insurance companies is counter-productive to honest expert evidence, and it exposes the expert to a charge of bias towards the insurance company.
    Arson is a huge problem in the world of insurance. To catch the arsonist and to curb the occurrence of this type of fraud in the industry is an important task. However, the insurance industry has gone about this business in a rather foolhardy way. Quite often, the claims manager will proceed on a hunch, and will then resort to any means to avoid paying the claim.
    One of the larger and more recent fire cases I have worked on is that of the Munitoria Building in Pretoria, which housed the municipality. The building was gutted in March 1997, causing between 300 and 400 million rands’ worth of damage. The incident had strong political undertones – it took place around the time of transition in South Africa, and the press touted the idea that the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) and right-wingers had started the fire.
    I was called in by a consortium of insurance companies, including CIGNA, who had a financial interest. The police seemed pleased to have me involved, as they didn’t want the responsibility of any problems or fingers pointed at them, so I led the investigation on behalf of the insurers.
    All the evidence – the path of the fire, eyewitness accounts and damage to the exterior of the building – pointed to the fact that the fire had started as a result of an electrical malfunction in a downstairs office. Because of the political pressure, there was a need to make a public statement revealing my conclusions. We held a press conference on the steps of the burnt Munitoria Building, and I presented my findings. The police and other investigators concurred.
    CIGNA was not happy. My findings had greatly limited their ability to find what I like to call ‘wiggle room’ – an opportunity for them to find a reason not to pay out. Yet paying out is a fairly simple concept: it’s a case of fulfilling their obligations in terms of a contract that they have with the client.
    CIGNA brought in an expert called Dr Newton, who was from Burgoynes, a company of