Barker v Altrisk, A Division of Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited (23841/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 197 (22 July 2016)

Barker v Altrisk, A Division of Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited (23841/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 197 (22 July 2016)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with both the policy and section 52 of the Long-Term Insurance Act by not notifying the applicant timeously of the non-payment of the November 2012 premium. The respondent delayed notification until both the November and December 2012 premiums were in arrears, which was contrary to the statutory and contractual requirements that notice be given for each missed payment within a reasonable time. This failure deprived the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to pay the arrears and prevent the lapse. The respondent's insistence on strict compliance with the grace period, despite its own breach of the notice requirement, was unreasonable...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 197
Parties
Applicant: Michael Stuart Barker; Respondent: Altrisk, A Division of Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Case Number
23841/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Declaratory and Reinstatement Relief
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent's cancellation of the policy is declared unlawful and the policy must be reinstated subject to payment of arrear premiums.
Judges
Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Insurance Contracts, Policy Lapse, Notice Requirements, Long Term Insurance Act, Contractual Fairness
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Contracts Policy Lapse Notice Requirements Long Term Insurance Act Contractual Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Stuart Barker

Applicant

Altrisk, A Division of Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Declaratory and Reinstatement Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's lapsing of the applicant's life insurance policy was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with statutory and contractual notice requirements before lapsing the policy.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to pay arrear premiums before cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with both the policy and section 52 of the Long-Term Insurance Act by not notifying the applicant timeously of the non-payment of the November 2012 premium. The respondent delayed notification until both the November and December 2012 premiums were in arrears, which was contrary to the statutory and contractual requirements that notice be given for each missed payment within a reasonable time. This failure deprived the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to pay the arrears and prevent the lapse. The respondent's insistence on strict compliance with the grace period, despite its own breach of the notice requirement, was unreasonable...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent's cancellation of the policy is declared unlawful and the policy must be reinstated subject to payment of arrear premiums.

Orders

  • The respondent's cancellation of policy number 5……… is declared unlawful.
  • The respondent is ordered to reinstate policy number 5……… on the same terms and conditions as applied at 17 January 2013, subject to the applicant paying the instalments due in terms of the policy for the period between 1 November 2012 and the date of reinstatement of the policy.