Visser v 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited (1005/13) [2014] ZASCA 193; 2015 (3) SA 69 (SCA) (28 November 2014)

Visser v 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited (1005/13) [2014] ZASCA 193; 2015 (3) SA 69 (SCA) (28 November 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurer, 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited, failed to discharge the onus of proving that the deceased made any material misrepresentation or non-disclosure regarding her medical history. The hospital records relied upon by the insurer were incomplete, unreliable, and not admitted as evidence of their truth, and no application was made to admit them as hearsay under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The telephonic transcript was admissible as a record of the conversation but did not establish that the deceased's answers were untrue or knowingly false. The insurer did not prove that the deceased had experienced or failed to disclose episodes of...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 193
Parties
Appellant: Ruth Christine Visser; Respondent: 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Case Number
1005/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment of the High Court set aside and replaced with judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Judges
Cachalia, Willis, Swain, Fourie
Legal Topics
Life Insurance Policy, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Commercial and Corporate Life Insurance Policy Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Christine Visser

Appellant

1 Life Direct Insurance Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurer discharged the onus of proving misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the deceased regarding her medical history.
  2. 2 Whether the hospital records and telephonic transcript were admissible and reliable evidence of the deceased's medical condition.
  3. 3 Whether any alleged misrepresentation or non-disclosure was material to the assessment of risk under the policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurer, 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited, failed to discharge the onus of proving that the deceased made any material misrepresentation or non-disclosure regarding her medical history. The hospital records relied upon by the insurer were incomplete, unreliable, and not admitted as evidence of their truth, and no application was made to admit them as hearsay under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The telephonic transcript was admissible as a record of the conversation but did not establish that the deceased's answers were untrue or knowingly false. The insurer did not prove that the deceased had experienced or failed to disclose episodes of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment of the High Court set aside and replaced with judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of the sum of R3 200 000.
  • The defendant is to pay interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from 3 December 2010 to date of payment.