Aegis Insurance Company Ltd. v Consani NO (6/95) [1996] ZASCA 66; 1996 (4) SA 1 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 547 (A); (31 May 1996)

Aegis Insurance Company Ltd. v Consani NO (6/95) [1996] ZASCA 66; 1996 (4) SA 1 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 547 (A); (31 May 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that in claims under an accident insurance policy, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the death was accidental and must exclude suicide on a balance of probabilities. The presumption against suicide is a factual inference that may assist in weighing evidence but does not shift the legal burden of proof. In this case, the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving accidental death. The technical evidence, particularly the trajectory of the bullet and the circumstances of the shooting, supported suicide as the more probable cause of death. The absence of direct evidence from the post-mortem doctor and the lack of reliable details...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Aegis Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Eric Adrian Consani NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 1996
Case Number
6/95
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted against the plaintiff with costs.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Nienaber, Schutz
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Exclusion, Burden of Proof, Accidental Death, Suicide Presumption
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Policy Exclusion Burden of Proof Accidental Death Suicide Presumption

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aegis Insurance Company Limited

Appellant

Eric Adrian Consani NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's death was accidental or suicide under the terms of the insurance policy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving accidental death and excluding suicide.
  3. 3 Whether the presumption against suicide affects the incidence of the burden of proof in South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that in claims under an accident insurance policy, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the death was accidental and must exclude suicide on a balance of probabilities. The presumption against suicide is a factual inference that may assist in weighing evidence but does not shift the legal burden of proof. In this case, the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving accidental death. The technical evidence, particularly the trajectory of the bullet and the circumstances of the shooting, supported suicide as the more probable cause of death. The absence of direct evidence from the post-mortem doctor and the lack of reliable details...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted against the plaintiff with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The order of the court below is replaced with: 'Absolution is granted against the plaintiff with costs.'