Van der Westhuizen v Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd (06/21491) [2008] ZAGPHC 457 (10 December 2008)

Van der Westhuizen v Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd (06/21491) [2008] ZAGPHC 457 (10 December 2008)

Prescription commenced to run once the conditions for the dread disease benefit were met, specifically when the plaintiff suffered a coma for at least 96 hours resulting in permanent neurological deficit, which occurred by no later than 25 September 2003. The requirement to submit a claim form did not postpone the running of prescription, as the creditor cannot delay prescription by his own inaction. The defendant had actual or deemed knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arose by 25 September 2003, when the claim form was signed and submitted. As the summons was only served on 29 September 2006, more than three years after the debt became due, the claim had prescribed. The...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 457
Parties
Plaintiff: Freislich van der Westhuizen; Defendant: Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2008
Case Number
06/21491
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separate Adjudication of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Defendant’s special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Meyer
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Insurance Policy Claims, Dread Disease Benefit, Special Plea, Extinctive Prescription
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Insurance Policy Claims Dread Disease Benefit Special Plea Extinctive Prescription

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freislich van der Westhuizen

Plaintiff

Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separate Adjudication of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription commence to run in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for payment of the dread disease benefit under the policy.
  2. 2 Does the requirement to submit a completed claim form affect the commencement of prescription.
  3. 3 Did the defendant allege and prove the dates on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises.

Ratio Decidendi

Prescription commenced to run once the conditions for the dread disease benefit were met, specifically when the plaintiff suffered a coma for at least 96 hours resulting in permanent neurological deficit, which occurred by no later than 25 September 2003. The requirement to submit a claim form did not postpone the running of prescription, as the creditor cannot delay prescription by his own inaction. The defendant had actual or deemed knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arose by 25 September 2003, when the claim form was signed and submitted. As the summons was only served on 29 September 2006, more than three years after the debt became due, the claim had prescribed. The...

Court Disposition

Defendant’s special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s action against the defendant is dismissed with costs.