Court must rule on couple’s time of death to ensure correct beneficiary payment

The High Court in Kimberley recently had to rule on the exact times at which a husband and a wife died in a car accident after Liberty queried payment of the life insurance benefit to the wife’s estate.

A Mr Becker and Mrs Becker died when their vehicle collided with a truck in January 2018. Mrs Becker was the nominated beneficiary of Mr Becker’s Liberty policy.

Liberty paid the benefit of nearly R1.4 million to the executor of Mrs Becker’s estate. It subsequently came to Liberty’s attention that Mrs Becker was certified as dead at 12.15am on 8 January, but Mr Becker was certified as dead at 3.10am on the same day.

As the High Court noted in its judgment, a person can only inherit from another if he or she is alive at the time of the other’s death. Accordingly, if Mr Becker pre-deceased Mrs Becker, the benefit will be payable to the executor of her estate. If Mrs Becker did not survive him, or if they died simultaneously, the benefit will be payable to Mr Becker’s estate.

Testimony from Liberty’s witnesses

According to the judgment handed down last month, the court heard evidence from witnesses who attended the scene of the accident.

Liberty relied on the testimony from a detective from the South African Police Service (SAPS) and a paramedic employed by the Western Cape’s Emergency Medical Services. The executor subpoenaed a SAPS warrant officer to testify.

The detective testified that when he arrived at the scene at about 12.15am, Mrs Becker had already been declared dead and Mr Becker was being removed from the vehicle.

He said Mr Becker was declared dead at 3.10am because it took longer to remove his body from the vehicle. His evidence was that the time of certification of death does not equate to the time of death, as certification is done only on the extraction of a body from a vehicle.

The paramedic’s testimony was that both Mr and Mrs Becker were already dead when he arrived at the scene.

Under cross-examination, the paramedic said he could dispute the warrant officer’s version that she and her partner were the first responders, as he was not there at the time that she was. He also confirmed that he would not be able to dispute the warrant officer’s statement that she felt Mrs Becker’s pulse and that Mrs Becker made gargling sounds.

When it was put to him that Mrs Becker, who was seated in the back middle of the vehicle, would not have been exposed to the same force as Mr Becker was exposed to, the paramedic said she would not have experienced the same blunt trauma as Mr Becker, but she would have had the same force of inertia. He conceded that the most damage to the vehicle was where Mr Becker was seated.

When confronted with a statement that Mr Becker would have died immediately but Mrs Becker could still have been alive, the paramedic stated that, in his view, Mr Becker would have died immediately. He did not express an opinion on whether Mrs Becker could probably still have been alive.

Incorrect time on the accident report

According to the judgment, the warrant officer testified as follows:

• She arrived on the scene at 12.20am.
• She could see only the upper side of Mr Becker’s head, and he never showed any reaction, or made any movement or noise.
• Mrs Becker was making soft snoring noises. She felt a pulse when she touched Mrs Becker’s left arm. When she attempted to feel the pulse again, there was none.
• She did not specify in her written statement that Mr Becker was already deceased on her arrival or that Mrs Becker was still alive on her arrival because she deemed it unnecessary for the purpose of opening the docket. According to her, all that was required for the opening of the docket was that both Mr and Mrs Becker were deceased.

The warrant officer read a statement from Mrs Becker’s mother into the record. According to this statement, “The two police members who arrived first on the scene felt the pulse of my daughter, the deceased, and informed me that she is still alive.” After removing Mrs Becker’s mother and daughter from the vehicle, they went to assist Mrs Becker, “who still had a weak pulse. Minutes later, the paramedics declared her deceased.”

Under cross-examination, the warrant officer conceded that she had recorded the time of the accident incorrectly on the accident report, and she did not mention that she felt Mrs Becker’s pulse or that she had heard her make a sound. But she was adamant that she did feel Mrs Becker’s pulse, despite not including this in her written statement.

Post-mortem reports not admitted

Liberty asked the court to admit into evidence, by way of an affidavit, the post-mortem examinations of the bodies to establish that the injuries suffered by Mrs Becker were comparable to, if not worse than, the injuries suffered by Mr Becker.

The executor opposed the application on various grounds, namely that the pathologist is not a public officer, that the documents are not public documents, and they contain hearsay evidence.

Acting Judge Alme Stanton did not admit the post-mortem reports into evidence, saying: “I am not persuaded that a post-mortem report has the characteristics of a public document.”

Warrant officer’s evidence was credible

Counsel for Liberty argued that the court should disregard the warrant officer’s evidence because it was unreliable. But Judge Stanton thought otherwise, saying it was “consistent, credible and reliable”.

The judge said the warrant officer “presented her version in a forthright manner without deviating from the essence thereof, notwithstanding thorough cross-examination. It was noticeable that she did not endeavour to pad her version and that she correctly made relevant concessions with regard to the contents of her written statement. Her explanation for not including crucial facts was satisfactory.”

The court concluded that Mr Becker pre-deceased his wife. Mrs Becker accordingly had an enforceable right that was transmissible to her estate.

Liberty’s claim was dismissed, with costs.