From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

ANDREAS PAPAGAPIOU V SANTAM LIMITED

The SCA today dismissed an appeal by an insured, Mr Andreas Papagapiou, against the decision of the High Court, Bloemfontein. The insured had claimed indemnification from the insurer, Santam Limited, in terms of an insurance policy, arising out of a fire that had caused damage to his house, amounting to R164 149,00.

Santam refused to pay the claim and alleged that the insured had forfeited the benefits under the policy, in terms of a clause which provided that if any fraudulent means were used by the insured to claim a benefit under the policy, the benefit afforded thereunder would be forfeited.

Santam’s refusal to pay was based on the evidence of an assessor, Mr André Carstens, who told the court that Mr Papagapiou had on two occasions offered him initially R50 000 and later R10 000 if he agreed to inflate the quantum of the damage to his property to R500 000 and R165 000 respectively. Carstens refused and in his assessment note to Santam, he reported the two incidents. Santam accordingly refused to pay.

The High Court (Cillie J) upheld Santam’s refusal and dismissed the insured’s claim with costs.

The Appeal Court agreed with the decision of Cillie J and dismissed the insured’s appeal with costs.