Qilingele v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (117/91) [1992] ZASCA 189; 1993 (1) SA 69 (AD); (28 September 1992)

Qilingele v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (117/91) [1992] ZASCA 189; 1993 (1) SA 69 (AD); (28 September 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the materiality test for misrepresentation in insurance contracts is governed by section 63(3) of the Insurance Act, not by the common law reasonable man standard. The statutory test requires the insurer to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the misrepresentation was likely to have materially affected its assessment of risk at the time the policy was issued. The respondent's expert evidence established that the insured's failure to disclose contemporaneous applications for life insurance with other insurers was material to the risk assessment, as it would have led to further enquiries or a declinature. The court found that the respondent...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 189
Parties
Appellant: Angeline Lulama Qilingele; Respondent: South African Mutual Life Assurance Society
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1992
Case Number
117/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van Heerden, E.M. Grosskopf, Van Coller, KrieglER, Harms
Legal Topics
Insurance Contracts, Misrepresentation, Materiality of Risk, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Insurance Contracts Misrepresentation Materiality of Risk Statutory Interpretation Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angeline Lulama Qilingele

Appellant

South African Mutual Life Assurance Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully repudiated liability under a life insurance policy based on a misrepresentation in the proposal form.
  2. 2 Whether the materiality test for misrepresentation is governed by common law or by section 63(3) of the Insurance Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving materiality under section 63(3) of the Insurance Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the materiality test for misrepresentation in insurance contracts is governed by section 63(3) of the Insurance Act, not by the common law reasonable man standard. The statutory test requires the insurer to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the misrepresentation was likely to have materially affected its assessment of risk at the time the policy was issued. The respondent's expert evidence established that the insured's failure to disclose contemporaneous applications for life insurance with other insurers was material to the risk assessment, as it would have led to further enquiries or a declinature. The court found that the respondent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.