In a landmark decision for cohabiting couples, the Constitutional Court recently ruled that partners in long-term relationships can inherit and claim maintenance from their deceased partner’s estate – without a will. For the rising number of cohabiting couples, this is welcome news.
Before the decision, according to a 2016 report, more than three million South Africans who cohabited outside marriage would have been unable to claim either maintenance or inherit anything from their partner’s estate unless it was stipulated in a will.
The economic downturn and the psychological pressures of Covid-19 have led many couples to consider moving in together. While the prospect of spending more time with a significant other may sound appealing, it is important to understand the pros and cons of what you may be getting yourself into: Be fully covered: While the new Constitutional Court ruling may have you covered should your partner pass away, living with your partner presents slightly different challenges.
For example, moving in together often results in a staggering amount of “stuff”, which means you and your partner or housemate will need to update the amount your household contents are insured for. If your relationship is seen as serious (insurers look for things like how long you’ve been together or if you’ve co-purchased furniture), then an insurer will treat you the same as they would a married couple.
This means you can take out a policy between yourselves, with one person being the main policyholder and the other the additional insured. Remember:
• The main policyholder will be paid out in the event of a claim. It will then be up to him or her to pay the additional insurance. So, trust is important.
• If you both have separate household contents policies with different insurers and are wondering which insurer to go with, don’t just pick the lowest premium price: consider the benefits and excesses.
• Get your household contents evaluated so you’re certain you’re adequately covered for the current replacement value of a similar new property.
• When your household contents are on the move between properties you should notify your insurer of the new address before the day you move.
• It’s in your interest to tell your insurer about all the security features of your new home. Generally, there will be specific security requirements to qualify for burglary and theft cover. (Temporary) trouble in paradise: It’s not common, but if you happen to argue and temporarily move out, taking some of your household contents with you, these items may still be covered in your temporary abode, providing this is a private building – not a tent or caravan, for example.
This only applies to a temporary situation, though. Vehicle insurance is also important: Remember to add your partner as a regular driver on your policy if he or she uses your vehicle more frequently than you do. If it really doesn’t work out: If sadly, the relationship comes to an end, then you should get your own policy as soon as possible. Remember, if you’re the additional insured, it’s up to the policyholder to pay you in the event of a claim, which could get difficult if you’re not together anymore.
• Steyn and Neethling’s work for Santam ConCourt gives unmarried couples better protection Insurance tips for couples living together The ConCourt ruled that partners in long-term relationships can inherit from their deceased partner’s estate without a will. By Staff Reporter An increasing number of motor vehicle accident insurance claims are being rejected and disputed on the strength of a clause in insurance policies, namely the reasonable precautions clause, the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (OSTI) has said.
Ayanda Mazwi, a senior assistant ombudsman, said that a report of complaint trends conducted by OSTI in November 2021, showed an increasing number of motor vehicle accident claims rejected by insurers based on the insured’s breach of a contractual duty of care. She emphasised the importance of consumer awareness of this clause in insurance policies.
The clause requires that the insured must use all reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise loss, damage, death, injury or liability. A breach may warrant the rejection of a claim. Mazwi said there were various reasons why an insurer may invoke this clause but it was mainly relied on in cases where the insurer alleges that the insured was driving above the regulated speed.
The question then is whether insurers may reject a claim because the insured was speeding? When deciding on a dispute of this nature, OSTI will first consider whether the insured was, in fact, speeding. The insurer, as it is relying on a breach by the insured of a policy condition or on an exclusion, carries the burden of proving the breach or exclusion.
It may rely on evidence such as data downloaded from the vehicle’s onboard computer vehicle tracking reports and experts in accident reconstruction. OSTI will consider the reliability of this evidence before the matter can be decided.
In a recent case before OSTI, the insured contested the calculation of speed by the insurer’s expert but requested that the office decides on the issue of recklessness. OSTI analysed the incident description and conditions under which the insured was driving. In his defence, the insured said he was not familiar with the road; that visibility was poor because it was nighttime, and the streetlights were not working.
Photographs of the accident scene showed that the insured was driving in a built-up urban area towards a T-junction. The insured stated that he had not seen the intersection ahead. When another vehicle suddenly approached from his left-hand side, he had to take evasive action, which caused him to lose control and collide with a tree.
OSTI found that based on these observations alone, the Consumers must take note of contractual duty of care clauses Speeding may void insurance claims insured should have exercised caution by regulating his speed to improve visibility and should have kept a proper lookout for obstacles on the road or a sudden emergency. In addition, the speed limit road sign (60km/h) was prominently placed some distance before the intersection.
The insurer’s accident reconstruction expert calculated that the insured was travelling at 104km/h at the time. OSTI concluded that, if the expert’s calculation of the speed was proven, the insured’s conduct would be considered reckless.
As a matter of probability, the insured’s conduct was also found to be the cause of the accident because had he observed the regulated speed, he would have been in a better position to see the intersection, stop and safely execute the turn.
For these reasons, OSTI was found in favour of the insurer. Clause mainly relied on when the insured broke the speed limit Motor vehicle accident insurance claims are increasingly being rejected and disputed, often when the insured did not keep to the regulated speed limit.
Steyn and Neethling work for Santam
Follow @SundayWorldZA on Twitter and @sundayworldza on Instagram, or like our Facebook Page, Sunday World, by clicking here for the latest breaking news in South Africa. To Subscribe to Sunday World, click here.
