Category Legal Affairs

Interpreting insurance contracts: a refresher (part 2)

14 July 2020 Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright
Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright

Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright

An insurance contract is presumed to require that the insured peril must be the proximate cause of the insured’s loss (see Incorporated General Insurance Ltd v A.R. Shooter trading as Shooter’s Fisheries 1987).

Causation involves two distinct enquiries namely factual causation and then legal causation.

The test for factual causation is generally described as the ‘but for’ test.

In the insurance context the enquiry is focused on the occurrence of the insured peril. But for the peril relied on and insured, would the loss event have occurred?

If factual causation is established the second part of the enquiry is whether the loss is sufficiently closely connected to the factual cause to be characterised as the legal cause of the loss.

In that regard, the yardstick in the insurance context is what the parties intended in the policy.

The court in Concord Insurance Co Limited v Oelofsen NO 1992 said that ‘effect must be given to the party’s own perception of causality’.

In an insurance contract, legal causation is assessed with reference to the standard laid down in the insurance contract. It is not a consideration of what public policy demands as in delict or criminal law.

So even if factual causation is established, an insured must also establish that the insured peril and the loss are sufficiently closely connected to satisfy the contractual standard that must be met to establish legal causation (see Napier NO v Collett & Another 1995).

In determining the proximate cause of the loss insured against, regard must be had to both factual and legal causation.

The proximate cause of the loss does not necessarily mean the latest cause in time but refers to the direct, dominant, operative and efficient cause.

Each case must be decided on its own wording and facts.

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Quick Polls


The intention with lockdown was to delay or flatten the Covid-19 infection curve and give both the private and public healthcare sectors time to prepare for the inevitable onslaught. Did the strategy work?


No, the true numbers are not reflected. Almost a quarter of South Africans may already have been infected with Covid-19
It’s too soon to tell. We will likely get a second wave with stringent lockdown regulations in place again
Yes, South Africa bought enough time to make a significant difference. We saved lives and have passed our peak. The worst is over
fanews magazine
FAnews August 2020 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

Ethical behaviour - are you toeing the line?
Latest business interruption developments raise more questions than answers
Brokers remember: You are accountable...
A sustainable pension - How to manage living annuities in uncertain times
Claim stats… life can change in a heartbeat
Are South Africa’s income protection benefit providers ready for COVID-19?
Subscribe now