Visser v 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited

The appellant, Ruth Christine Visser, was an 80% beneficiary under a life insurance policy issued by 1 Life Direct Insurance Limited on the life of the late Sibongile Ntobongwana. Upon the insured’s death in January 2009, Visser claimed payment of R3.2 million. The insurer repudiated the claim, alleging that the deceased had misrepresented and failed to disclose pre-existing medical conditions (including fainting spells, chest pains, anxiety or stress) during a telephonic application in 2007. The High Court upheld the repudiation. Visser appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court judgment was set aside and replaced with an order directing the insurer to pay the appellant R3,200,000, together with interest at 15.5% per annum from 3 December 2010 to date of payment, and costs of suit.

The case clarifies that insurers bear a strict onus to prove not only misrepresentation or non-disclosure, but also the truth of the underlying facts relied upon. It underscores the evidentiary requirements when insurers rely on medical records and reinforces principles governing hearsay evidence in insurance disputes.