Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (569/2003) [2004] ZASCA 115; [2006] 4 All SA 333 (SCA); [2007] 4 All SA 684 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (569/2003) [2004] ZASCA 115; [2006] 4 All SA 333 (SCA); [2007] 4 All SA 684 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which excluded liability for death arising from 'self-inflicted injury or self-inflicted illness, whether intended or not', applied to the circumstances of the deceased's accidental death. The court found that the ordinary rules of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 115
Parties
Appellant: Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: G J Van Der Merwe NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2004
Case Number
569/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim under the policy dismissed.
Judges
Scott, Mthiyane, Conradie, Van Heerden, Ponnan
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Exclusion, Interpretation of Contracts, Locus Standi, Cession in Securitatem Debiti
Commercial and Corporate Insurance Policy Exclusion Interpretation of Contracts Locus Standi Cession in Securitatem Debiti

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited

Appellant

G J Van Der Merwe NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion clause in the insurance policy covers accidental, wholly self-inflicted injury regardless of intent.
  2. 2 Whether the executor of the deceased estate has locus standi to claim benefits under the policy after cession to a third party.
  3. 3 Whether the time bar provision in the policy applies to the cessionary.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which excluded liability for death arising from 'self-inflicted injury or self-inflicted illness, whether intended or not', applied to the circumstances of the deceased's accidental death. The court found that the ordinary rules of grammar and contract interpretation made the phrase 'whether intended or not' applicable to both self-inflicted injury and illness. The injury in question was entirely self-inflicted, and the exclusion clause was not ambiguous or contrary to public policy. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of showing that the exclusion clause should not apply. Consequently, the claim...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim under the policy dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside.