South Africa Case Law

Wyno Construction and Projects (Proprietary Limited v Miway Insurance Limited (48046/20)

Wyno Construction and Projects (Proprietary Limited v Miway Insurance Limited (48046/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 437 (13 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48046/20

Judge

G Malindi

The court found that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which denies cover for theft or attempted theft by an employee, is reasonable and not contrary to public policy. The applicant voluntarily chose to exclude driver dishonesty cover to reduce the premium, exercising contractual autonomy. There was no evidence of coercion or uneven bargaining power. The clause does not attribute fault to the applicant but simply excludes claims under specified circumstances. The evidence established, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant's employee stole the truck, thereby triggering…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Public Policy
• Contractual Freedom
• Driver Dishonesty
• Onus Of Proof

Outsurance Insurance Company Ltd v Mkhize (68444/09)

Outsurance Insurance Company Ltd v Mkhize (68444/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 79 (11 March 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

68444/09

Judge

N.M. Mavundla

The High Court held that the insurer failed to prove the defendant was intoxicated when the accident occurred, so the claim was dismissed with costs.

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Burden Of Proof
• Disclaimer Clause
• Non Disclosure
• Indemnity
• Contractual Breach

Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd v Springgold Investments (Pty) Ltd (526/08)

Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd v Springgold Investments (Pty) Ltd (526/08) [2009] ZASCA 112; [2010] 1 All SA 301 (SCA) (23 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

526/08

Judges

Harms, Mthiyane, Lewis, Van Heerden, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insured failed to prove sabotage, so the contamination exclusion applied and the insurance claim was dismissed.

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Burden Of Proof
• Expert Evidence
• Malicious Damage
• Contamination Of Goods
• Insurance-policy-exclusion

Springgold Investments (Pty) Ltd v Guradian National Insurance Company Limited (6146/1998)

Springgold Investments (Pty) Ltd v Guradian National Insurance Company Limited (6146/1998) [2008] ZAKZHC 35; 2009 (3) SA 235 (D) (8 May 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

6146/1998

Judge

Patel

High Court insurance dispute over alleged sabotage to oil tanks, policy exclusions for contamination, alleged fraud, excess, and interest.

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Fraudulent Claims
• Contract Interpretation
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest Act
• Onus Of Proof
• Insurance-law

Bezuidenhout NO v Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk (40688/200)

Bezuidenhout NO v Absa Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk (40688/200) [2008] ZAGPHC 61 (26 February 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

40688/200

Judge

Fabricius

The High Court held that a motor insurance exclusion for persons who normally reside at the insured’s residence applied to bar the plaintiff’s claim.

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Prescription Act
• Motor Vehicle Liability
• Insurance-policy-exclusion
• Contract-interpretation

Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (569/2003)

Hollard Life Assurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (569/2003) [2004] ZASCA 115; [2006] 4 All SA 333 (SCA); [2007] 4 All SA 684 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

569/2003

Judges

Scott, Mthiyane, Conradie, Van Heerden, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which excluded liability for death arising from 'self-inflicted injury or self-inflicted illness, whether intended or not', applied to the circumstances of the deceased's accidental death. The court found that the ordinary rules of grammar and contract interpretation made the phrase 'whether intended or not' applicable to both self-inflicted injury and illness. The injury in question was entirely self-inflicted, and the exclusion clause was not ambiguous or contrary to public policy. The respondent failed to d…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Locus Standi
• Cession In Securitatem Debiti

Aegis Insurance Company Ltd. v Consani NO (6/95)

Aegis Insurance Company Ltd. v Consani NO (6/95) [1996] ZASCA 66; 1996 (4) SA 1 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 547 (A); (31 May 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

6/95

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Nienaber, Schutz

The court held that the plaintiff had to prove accidental death and exclude suicide on a balance of probabilities. Absolution from the instance was granted.

• Insurance Policy Exclusion
• Burden Of Proof
• Accidental Death
• Suicide Presumption
• Insurance-law
• Burden-of-proof