Van Der Westhuizen v Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited (06/21491) [2008] ZAGPJHC 1 (10 December 2008)

Van Der Westhuizen v Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited (06/21491) [2008] ZAGPJHC 1 (10 December 2008)

Prescription began to run once the plaintiff suffered a coma for at least 96 hours resulting in permanent neurological deficit, as defined in the policy, which occurred by no later than 25 September 2003. The requirement to submit a claim form does not affect the commencement of prescription, as the creditor cannot postpone prescription by his own inaction. The plaintiff had actual or deemed knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arose by 25 September 2003, the date he signed and submitted the claim form. The summons was served more than three years after this date, and the claim is therefore prescribed. The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld and the...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPJHC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Freislich Van Der Westhuizen; Defendant: Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2008
Case Number
06/21491
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Adjudicated Separately Under Rule 33(4)
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, Running of Prescription
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Insurance Policy Claims Dread Disease Benefit Running of 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 4 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 / Special Plea of Prescription Adjudicated Separately Under Rule 33(4)

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 life assurance 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 began to run once the plaintiff suffered a coma for at least 96 hours resulting in permanent neurological deficit, as defined in the policy, which occurred by no later than 25 September 2003. The requirement to submit a claim form does not affect the commencement of prescription, as the creditor cannot postpone prescription by his own inaction. The plaintiff had actual or deemed knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arose by 25 September 2003, the date he signed and submitted the claim form. The summons was served more than three years after this date, and the claim is therefore prescribed. The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld and 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.