1. THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF IT’S PARTS POLICY WORDING AND INTERPRETATION BY GLENN HICKLING

2. “Insurance Companies…with their weasel words and evasions and extenuating circumstances, and their conditional clauses set in miniscule, illegible type” - A year in Provence: Peter Mayle (1989) “Insurance Companies…with their weasel words and evasions and extenuating circumstances, and their conditional clauses set in miniscule, illegible type” - A year in Provence: Peter Mayle (1989)

3. RULES OF INTERPRETATION 1. The Primary Rules -words should receive their ordinary and grammatical meaning; -words should be read in the context of the contract as a whole; -every word should, if possible, receive effect; 2. The Secondary Rules -rule favouring validity; -eiusdem generis rule; -expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule; 3. The Tertiary Rules -quod minimum rule; -contra preferentem rule;

4. “No rule in the interpretation of a policy is more fully established, or more imperative or controlling, than that which declares that, in all cases, it must be liberally construed in favour of the insured so as not to defeat without a plain necessity his claim to an indemnity which in the making the insurance it was his object to secure” “No rule in the interpretation of a policy is more fully established, or more imperative or controlling, than that which declares that, in all cases, it must be liberally construed in favour of the insured so as not to defeat without a plain necessity his claim to an indemnity which in the making the insurance it was his object to secure” Per King J in Barnard v Protea Assurance Co Ltd t/a Protea Assurance 1998 (3) SA 1063© at 1068 B-C

5. EXAMPLE OMBUDSMAN CASE CR222 OMBUDSMAN CASE CR222 “CRANIECTOMY / CRANIOTOMY WITH EXCISION OF FOREIGN BODY FROM BRAIN” “CRANIECTOMY / CRANIOTOMY WITH EXCISION OF FOREIGN BODY FROM BRAIN” -Narrow or Wide Interpretation?

6. OMBUDSMAN CASE CR98 OMBUDSMAN CASE CR98 “…The pension will be payable monthly in arrears….” “A court, will not, unless the intention of the parties is manifest, so construe the contract as to give one of the parties an unfair or unreasonable advantage over the other”. “Rand Rietfontein Estates Ltd Vs. Cohn 1937 AD 317 EXAMPLE

7. QUESTIONS?