The Western Cape High Court judgment in A.M. v Road Accident Fund (16112/2022) [2026] ZAWCHC 352 offers practitioners important guidance on the pitfalls that arise when competing actuarial experts reach substantially different valuations from the same underlying facts when quantifying future loss of earnings in personal injury claims. Liability and general damages had been settled but the parties remained sharply divided on quantum.
The plaintiff, aged 16, was injured in a hit-and-run accident. At the time of the accident, she aspired to become a foundation phase teacher. The accident caused facial and orthopaedic injuries together with cognitive deficits, rendering her unsuitable for teaching but not entirely unemployable. Both actuarial experts computed the loss based on the same industrial psychologist's opinion projecting a teaching career with progression to deputy principal. Yet the plaintiff's actuary valued the loss at approximately ZAR 6.03 million while the defendant's actuary arrived at ZAR 3.9 million. The discrepancy arose from differing assumptions and methodology.
The court identified three critical deficiencies in the plaintiff's actuary's approach. First, the actuary assumed the plaintiff would enter the post-accident labour market at Paterson level A1 without verifying this with the industrial psychologist, who had in fact specified Paterson level B3. The court held that an actuary cannot competently testify on standard industrial psychology practice and that the unverified assumption was incorrect.
Second, the actuary projected a five-notch salary increase on promotion to deputy principal rather than applying the applicable governmental regulations requiring commencement on the minimum notch (notch 243), which inflated the projected salary from age 50 to retirement.
Third, when challenged, the actuary asserted that the difference was "not material" without quantifying it in monetary terms. The court rejected this as an impermissible ipse dixit, holding that an expert must quantify the impact of contested assumptions so that the court can make an informed judicial determination of materiality.
Having preferred the defendant's actuary's methodology, the court applied agreed contingency deductions of 20% to pre-morbid earnings and 35% to post-morbid earnings, reflecting the plaintiff's young age and lengthy remaining working life of more than 40 years. This yielded a net future loss of earnings award of ZAR 4,763,719.75.
For practitioners and insurers defending personal injury claims, A.M. v Road Accident Fund underscores several key lessons: actuaries must verify every assumption with the relevant source expert rather than making autonomous assumptions outside their domain; calculations must apply the governing regulatory framework, with departures cogently explained; the monetary impact of every contested assumption must be quantified for the court; contingencies must be tailored to the individual plaintiff's circumstances; and in-house experts are not automatically disqualified, provided their opinions are objective, properly reasoned and independent.
