A May 2025 high court decision provides a crisp reminder of what an exception is meant to achieve and assists in clarifying the approach an insurer may take when a claimant cites the underwriting manager as defendant. Norman Luxury Tours sued Stalker Hutchinson Admiral, described in the summons as acting “on behalf of” Santam, after a bus it owned was written off in June 2019 and the claim was declined. SHA pleaded that it was not the insurer, that the bus never appeared on the schedule, and that Santam bore the risk. Norman Luxury Tours excepted, calling the plea vague and embarrassing. The court disagreed and dismissed the exception with costs.
Citing Living Hands v Ditz, the court repeated that “the object of an exception is not to embarrass one’s opponent or to take advantage of a technical flaw, but to dispose of the case in an expeditious manner without causing embarrassment”. The Rule demands clear and concise facts, but it does not insist on perfection; an exception will fail unless the impugned pleading is truly unintelligible or discloses no sustainable defence. Read as a whole, the court held that SHA’s plea was lucid: it acts as Santam’s underwriting manager, the policy schedule omits the damaged bus, therefore no cover exists.
The judgment corrects a common misconception. Where a plaintiff sues the underwriting manager, the manager does not have to engineer a non‑joinder application or invite the court to strike the claim. It is enough to plead, as SHA did, that it acts as the insurer’s agent and that any liability proven would rest with the insurer. That statement of agency satisfies the Rule, defeats an exception based on vagueness and leaves the defences to be decided on its merits.
In short, substance over form remains the touchstone, both for exceptions and for identifying the correct defendant.