Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Exemptions for certain short-term insurers providing premium relief
by Hilah Laskov, Senior Associate and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney
Reviewed by Shayne Krige, Director and head of the Investment Funds & Private Equity practice
The FSCA has allowed insurers to provide premium relief to policyholders who may be unable to pay their insurance policies due to the financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The FSCA has issued additional exemptions from the Regulations dealing with the payment of commissions for short-term insurers providing such premium relief.
- Background
On 17 April 2020, we advised that a number of insurers had approached the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (the “FSCA“) to request permission to grant premium relief to policyholders who may be unable to meet their insurance policy obligations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[1]
The FSCA, in a notice[2] (the “First Notice“) published on 15 April 2020, responded to these requests by allowing insurers and independent intermediaries to make use of premium relief[3] and by providing an exemption to insurers who grant such premium relief (“Entities Providing Premium Relief“) from, amongst others, the requirement under the Regulations under the Short-Term Insurance Act[4] (the “Regulations“) that commission may only be paid once the premium is paid to the insurer[5] (the “First Exemption“). The First Exemption was made subject to certain conditions.
- Exemption for short-term insurers and independent intermediaries
On 23 April 2020, the FSCA published a notice[6] (the “Second Notice“) which withdrew and replaced the First Notice.
The Second Notice provides that Entities Providing Premium Relief are exempt from compliance with the requirement under the Regulations that commission may only be paid once the premium is paid to an insurer[7], as was the case with the First Notice, and goes further to provide that Entities Providing Premium Relief are also exempt from the requirement that any commission paid in respect of the policy must not exceed the maximum allowable commission[8] (the “Second Exemption“).
The Second Exemption is subject to the conditions that:
2.1 the premium relief is granted in relation to an existing policy[9] of which the policyholder is in good standing with the insurer; and
2.2 any commission paid in respect of the policy subject to the premium relief must not exceed the prescribed maximum allowable commission, whereas a reference to “premium” in the Regulations[10] must be read as the premium that would have been payable had it not been for the premium relief.
- Commencement and duration
The Second Notice is effective as of 23 April 2020 and will remain effective until amendment or withdrawal by the FSCA by notice on its website.
- Breach of the notice
Non‑compliance with the conditions
provided in the Second Notice will result in the exemptions no longer being
applicable to that short-term insurer.
[1] See Financial Services Sector Update 6 sent on 17 April 2020.
[2] The exemption was granted in FSCA INS Notice 6 of 2020 published on 15 April 2020.
[3] “Premium relief” means a temporary release from the obligation to pay the premium payable under an existing policy in whole or in part, either by –
(a) allowing the non-payment of premium for a limited amount of time;
(b) allowing for an extended period of grace for the payment of premium; or
without reducing or limiting any policy benefits under the policy.
[4] GNR.1493 of 27 November 1998: Regulations under section 70 of the Short-term Insurance Act 53 1998 (Government Gazette No. 19495) (“Regulations“).
[5] Regulation 5.2 of the Regulations.
[6] FSCA INS Notice 8 of 2020.
[7] Regulation 5.2 of the Regulations.
[8] Regulation 5.3(1) of the Regulations.
[9] “Existing policy”, as defined in the Notice, means a policy entered into before the date on which the Notice is published.
[10] Regulation 5.3(1) of the Regulations.
Latest News
POPIA face-off on Facebook: High Court says social media post is unlawful, orders interdict
In the recent High Court decision of Munetsi v Madhuyu, the applicant sought a court order against the respondents to [...]
SAFM Market Update: Cross Trainer Enters Business Rescue
Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of our Insolvency & Business Rescue practice area, had a discussion with Jimmy [...]
When Three Legal Planets Align… WhatsApp Must Pay a $220 000 000.00 Fine
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ("Commission"), being the foremost agency in Nigeria, responsible for the promotion, protection, and [...]
Waive Goodbye to Uncertainty: Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa
and Laeeqah Kassiem, Candidate Attorney This article discusses the judgement of Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation [...]
Mr. Pty Ltd, You Have a Right to Privacy!
When thinking about the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 ("POPIA") individuals often, mistakenly so, think about the [...]
Section 54 – Still a Bar to the Commencement of Mining Activity?
On 5 December 2018, Werksmans published an article on the Constitutional Court Judgment: CCT 265/17 Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral [...]