South Africa Case Law

Schoeman v Constantia Insurance Co Ltd (1) (001/2002)

Schoeman v Constantia Insurance Co Ltd (1) (001/2002) [2003] ZASCA 48; [2003] 2 All SA 642 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 313 (SCA) (21 May 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

001/2002

Judges

Marais, Zulman, Streicher, Cameron, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that South African law does not imply a forfeiture term in insurance contracts where a claim is partly fraudulent, absent an express clause. The common law is fundamentally anti-penal, and there is no compelling social need or clear authority for such a doctrine. The insurer bears the burden of proving fraud, which must be established on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the evidence showed that the plaintiff's claim was a provisional estimate made under difficult circumstances, with no intent to defraud. The rounding up of figures was to account for u…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Fraudulent Claims
• Forfeiture Of Claim
• Roman Dutch Law
• Burden Of Proof

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Clayton obo Geanneret and Others (131/95)

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Clayton obo Geanneret and Others (131/95) [1996] ZASCA 116; [1997] 1 All SA 708 (A) (27 September 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

131/95

Judges

Vivier, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Marais, Zulman

The court held that “fails” in article 48(f)(ii) requires deliberate, blameworthy withholding of documents, not mere omission, and dismissed the appeal.

• Special Plea
• Compliance With Statutory Requirements
• Interpretation Of Legislation
• Forfeiture Of Claim
• Statutory-interpretation
• Civil-appeal