Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Wanvoorstelling van wesenlike feite deur omiss/o aan 'n versekeraar kan tot gevolg he
dat die versekeringskontrak ongeldig verklaar word ingevolge die gemene reg. In Mutual
and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) is beslis
dat wesenlikheid bepaal moet word vanuit die oogpunt van die redelike man.
In 'n paging om bewys van die wesenlikheid van feite te vermy, het versekeraars vereis
dat aansoekers die voorstellings in die kontrak moat waarborg. Dit het tot gevolg gehad
dat voorstellings wat in die kontrak gewaarborg is outomaties wesenlik was.
Sedert die invoering van artikel 63(3) van die Versekeringswet 27 van 1943 deur die
wetgewer gedurende 1969, is die wesenlikheid van voorstellings egter 'n vereiste, selfs
waar dit in die kontrak gewaarborg is. Versekeraars sou dus in die toekoms nie agter
kontraktuele wanvoorstellings kon skuil nie. Hierdie maatreel het meer beskerming aan
die versekerde gebied.
In Qilingele v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) is die toets
vir wesenlikheid, soos vereis deur artikel 63{3), aangespreek. Dit het die vraag laat
ontstaan of daar twee aparte toetse vir wesenlikheid bestaan, naamlik gemeenregtelik en
statuter, en of daar een algemene toets bestaan. / Misrepresentation by omissio of material facts to an insurer may lead to an insurance
contract being declared invalid in terms of the common law. In Mutual and Federal
Insurance v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) it was decided to determine
materiality in the eyes of the reasonable man.
To avoid proving materiality of facts, the insurers required proposers to warrant the
representations in the contract. This resulted in the facts automatically being material.
In 1969 parliament, .however, enacted section 63(3) of the Insurance Act 27 of 1943
whereby materiality of presentations, even where it was warranted in the contract,
became a requirement. Therefore insurers could in future not hide behind contractual
misrepresentations. This provided more protection to the insured.
Qilingele v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1993 (1) SA 69 (A) addresses the test for
materiality as required by section 63(3). This resulted in the question whether two
separate tests for materiality in terms of common law and statute, or only one exists. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/16139 |
| Date | 06 1900 |
| Creators | Strydom, Johan Joost |
| Contributors | Havenga, Peter |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | 1 online resource (55 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds