Minister of Health Zweli Mkhize announced that the cumulative number of detected COVID-19 cases is 737 278.
This an increase of 1372 of the new cases identified in the last 24 hours.
The cumulative number of tests conducted to date is 4 980 440 with 17 266 new tests conducted since the last report.
Mkhize said a further 20 COVID-19 related deaths were recorded today: 19 from Eastern Cape and 1 from Gauteng, This brings the total number of COVID-19 related deaths to 19 809.
Of the 20 deaths reported today, 1 was reported to have occurred in the past 24-48 hours in Gauteng.
Mkhize added that the recoveries now stand at 679 688 which translates to a recovery rate of 92%.
Meanwhile despite early court rulings in favour of policyholders, some businesses with Covid-19-related losses will not have business interruption cover in terms of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) test case determined in the United Kingdom (UK) at the end of October.
The outcomes of the first test cases have shown that it is ultimately the wording of insurance policies that determines who is covered and who is not – and wordings are subject to widely differing interpretations, says Christine Rodrigues, partner at law firm Bowmans.
"So far, the court cases dealing with business interruption claims have largely gone in favour of policyholders," she said.
In the United States, policyholders have not been as lucky as most policy wordings require a direct physical loss in order for cover to be triggered,"said Rodrigues.
South Africa’s first case, decided in the High Court of Cape Town, found in favour of the policyholder Café Chameleon, the legal expert said.
"The insurer had rejected the business interruption claim on the basis that the policyholder’s loss was not covered under the Notifiable Diseases Extension clause in the insurance policy,” she said.
"The reason given was that the direct cause was the lockdown imposed by the Disaster Management Act Regulations and not the Covid-19 pandemic."
Rodrigues said that the High Court of Cape Town disagreed with the insurer’s argument and held that the insurance policy must be interpreted so its provisions ‘receive fair and sensible application, having regard to the context and to ensure a business-like or commercially sound result’.
It further held that the policy cannot be interpreted with reference to other policies or based on generalised concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on the insurance industry at large.
Compiled by Lehlohonolo Lehana.