Multimark-type Liability policies only provide cover for liability arising out of an accident. Possibly the thinking was that if the loss did not arise out of an accident, then it must have been a wilful act, which would also not be covered.
Here is an example of how a non-accidental loss could arise without wilful wrongdoing on the part of the defendant.
In the case of Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd (09/15228) , thieves gained access to the Loureiro property when a security guard (working for Imvula Quality Protection) was tricked into opening a pedestrian gate. The guard was negligent in that he failed to follow the agreed process of first notifying the Loureiro family before opening the gate.
Although the guard had intentionally opened the gate it was not his intent that the Loureiro family be harmed. It is unlikely that a Multimark-type policy would cover Imvula’s liability. By contrast, a Broadform liability policy probably would respond because it does not require that the event causing the loss be an accident.