This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.

In October 2025, a Canadian court refused collision cover because the driver was found, on a balance of probabilities, to have been under the influence to the point of being incapable of proper control. The claim also failed because the insured never submitted a proof of loss, and a wilful false statement about alcohol consumption forfeited any right to indemnity.

In this case another vehicle crashed into the rear of the insured driver’s vehicle in Calgary on 8 October 2023. The insurer’s investigation recovered event data recorder information showing the insured vehicle travelling at 98 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, with pronounced alternating steering inputs (swerving) in the seconds before impact. A responding officer noted glossy eyes, an unsteady gait, and the smell of alcohol in the insured. The driver declined to provide a breath sample and gave no reasonable excuse for refusing. The vehicle was badly damaged.

The court accepted the officer’s observations as credible, relied on the speed and steering data, and drew an adverse inference from the failure to call the passenger who had been with the driver at the party they attended and was in the car and from the insured’s failure to take a breathalyser test. On a balance of probabilities, the driver was found to have been under the influence to the extent of being incapable of proper control. The intoxication exclusion in the collision section of the policy therefore applied.

The policy and the Insurance Act required a proof of loss before any action could be brought. The insurer sent a blank form when the claim was opened and again when the insurer declined cover. The insured did not return a completed form before starting proceedings or at any time before trial. The court treated the requirement as mandatory and not dependent on whether the insurer was prejudiced. Because compliance was missing, the action was barred.

During the investigation, the insured denied consuming alcohol before the crash. The court found this to be a wilfully false statement. Under the statute, a wilful false statement forfeits cover. That consequence stood independently of the intoxication exclusion and the proof-of-loss bar and would have defeated the claim on its own.

South African courts apply the civil standard of proof in insurance disputes and uphold intoxication exclusions where evidence shows on the probabilities the insured was incapable of proper control, regardless of criminal conviction. In South African law, the requirement to submit a proof of loss before litigation will only bar a claim if the insurance policy expressly makes it a condition precedent to liability or to the right to sue. In matters where this is the case, courts generally enforce compliance, and failure to comply can defeat the claim even if the insurer has not suffered prejudice. Deliberate misstatements to an insurer may result in forfeiture of cover.  The fairness obligations under the Insurance Act and Policyholder Protection Rules do not override clear policy exclusions or mandatory conditions.

2025 ABCJ 174 (CanLII) | Singh v Security National Insurance Company | CanLII