Authored by Deniro Pillay.
In June 2026, the High Court dismissed an insurer’s application for absolution from the instance in respect of an insured’s claim for indemnity under an insurance policy for its damaged stock and materials, which had an insured value of R2 062 500.
The court noted that when absolution from the instance is sought at the close of a plaintiff’s case, the test to be applied is whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should, nor ought to) find for the plaintiff. If so, absolution should not be granted.
The insured alleged that a fire broke out at its motor vehicle spare parts store on 23 September 2023, which resulted in its stock and materials being destroyed. The value of the stock and materials exceeded the insured value under the policy. However, the insured limited its claim to the insured value of R2 062 500.
The insurer rejected the claim on the basis that: the insured failed to provide the insurer with true and complete information regarding the claim; the insured submitted fraudulent documents to substantiate the claim; and the insured could not submit sufficient proof of the value and ownership of the destroyed stock and materials and, therefore, could not prove its insured interest.
As a result of the rejected claim, the insured instituted a court action against the insurer for the payment of R2 062 500. The insured called one witness at trial and submitted documentary evidence (photographs, stock lists and supplier documents) to support its claim. After the insured closed its case, the insurer applied for absolution from the instance.
On the evidence presented by the insured, the court decided that the insured had adduced evidence upon which a reasonable court, applying its mind, could find for the insured. The insured’s evidence, if accepted, established the essential elements of its claim: the existence of the policy; the occurrence of the insured event; and the loss of stock and materials at the insured premises. As a result, absolution was not granted by the court.
The court reaffirmed that an insured had the onus to prove that the loss falls within the risk insured against under the policy. Once that is established, the onus shifts to the insurer to prove any grounds for repudiation such as fraud.