Clayton Munsami's claim for life insurance pay-out dismissed by Pinetown court
Image: File
A Pinetown court has dealt a significant blow to Clayton Munsami, dismissing his claim for reimbursement of over R200,000 related to life insurance premiums after he was removed as a beneficiary by his mother, Jeevarani Munsami.
The case stemmed from a verbal agreement between mother and son.
According to The Post, Clayton had initially committed to covering his mother's insurance premiums, as well as various household expenses, in exchange for being named the sole beneficiary of her Hollard and Liberty Life insurance policies, which total R3.3 million.
This arrangement aimed to secure not just his own future, but also to ensure his mother had adequate coverage should the worst occur.
However, the court heard that Clayton's financial difficulties during the Covid-19 pandemic led him to default on payments—not only for the insurance premiums but also for essential utilities and the security system for their home. His mother's testament demonstrated the strain this placed on her health and security, claiming that the home security system, reliant on her son's payments, had failed in October 2020.
Amid mounting concerns over missed insurance payments, Jeevarani made the difficult decision to change the beneficiaries of her life policies, appointing her sister and nephew instead. Underlining her rationale during the court proceedings, Jeevarani revealed that her son had effectively ceased his financial contributions and even ignored communications regarding the impending cancellation of the policies.
Magistrate Muntukayise Khumalo affirmed in his ruling that Clayton's admissions indicated a clear breach of their agreed terms.
“This, on its own, is a good reason for Jeevarani to have taken action to protect her interests in the policies as she stood to lose a funeral cover plus life cover, which she would not have been able to replace due to her chronic illnesses,” Magistrate Khumalo explained.
The magistrate further clarified that while oral agreements may hold legal weight in South Africa, they often present challenges in terms of proof and enforceability.
Ultimately, the court found that Jeevarani acted within her rights to amend her policy details as she deemed necessary.
Clayton failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was entitled to the relief he sought. “Applying the principles in National Employers’ General Insurance Co Ltd v Jagers, this court is of the view that the probabilities in this matter favour the defendant (Jeevarani),” Magistrate Khumalo concluded before dismissing the application with costs.
IOL