Sanlam stole funeral plan from us -- partners
Two lived off royalties from popular policy
IN a David and Goliath legal battle similar to the high-profile Vodacom Please Call Me lawsuit, two men have gone to court accusing multinational insurance company Sanlam of stealing a funeral policy they devised.
Former business partners Kevin Turner and Peter Farham claim the insurance giant terminated their contract with its subsidiary, Channel Life, after six years, only to rename the policy and continue selling it, in effect cutting out the duo.
But Sanlam is fighting back, denying any breaches and claiming that although it repackaged the policy, it had never marketed it or sold any policies.
The looming legal battle is being funded by the same company that assisted in Nkosana Makate’s eight-year court battle with Vodacom over the popular Please Call Me service he invented. The Constitutional Court ruled in Makate’s favour in April. Compensation, estimated to be about R10-billion, is still to be finalised.
Turner and Farham came up with the DreamWeaver policy in 2004. It was unusual at the time because it included a no-claim cash-back bonus and was available to people with HIV/Aids.
Turner said he came up with the idea after years of selling funeral policies in rural areas for various companies. He found the products he was selling did not cater to families’ needs.
“When it came to claiming, it took days for the mourning family to receive money for the funeral as they had to travel to the city to submit documents.”
He co-authored the policy with Farham and in 2004 the pair approached Channel Life, which signed a “licence agreement” with them for their DreamWeaver policy.
“Families were able to get assistance in 24 hours as soon as ON THE STREET: Kevin Turner, with his wife Yvonne, says the family has suffered hardship SAME DIFFERENCE: Kevin Turner and Peter Farham say their DreamWeaver policy is the same as Sanlam’s funeral plan they faxed all the documents they needed. They didn’t have to go to the offices,” said Turner.
“The product became very popular. The company used to [receive] 30 applications a month but with our product it [rose to] more than 30 000.”
According to the licence agreement with Channel Life, which has been submitted to the High Court in Durban, Turner and Farham would receive R40 for every application.
Both lived off the royalties. “I had the life I’ve always dreamt of, both my children were homeschooling and we could go on holiday any time we wanted,” Turner, 50, told the Sunday Times from his East London home.
After the contract was terminated, “there were times when I had to sell my clothes and my watch so we could have something to eat”. He said the family had even spent a few days living on the streets, but that he had since found work.
Sanlam bought Channel Life in 2010 and, six months later, terminated the agreement. “If they had terminated the contract and stopped using my idea, I would understand. It is business. But instead, they copied the product and just gave it a new name, Funeral Provider Plan. Even the brochure of their product is DreamWeaver.”
In court papers, Turner and Farham accuse Sanlam of using their intellectual property, infringing on their copyright in terms of the brochure for the policy, and not adhering to a 12month restraint-of-trade clause in the agreement.
The head of legal and compliance at Sanlam Developing Markets, Lebogang Padi, said the company was aware of the two court papers filed by Turner against Sanlam and Channel Life. Both matters were ready for trial but Turner and Farham had never taken steps to proceed and both matters were consequently sub judice.
In responding court papers, Sanlam denies charges of theft of intellectual property, copyright infringement and breach of restraint of trade. It disputes that the men have any copyright. It says Turner and Farham are not entitled to any relief, and that Sanlam has not sold any Funeral Provider Plans. It asks the court to dismiss the claim.
Farham could not be reached for comment this week.
Sterling Rand, a company that assists claimants with financing, said the case had “considerable merits” and it was pursuing it on Turner and Farham’s behalf. The company, which helped fund Makate in his lawsuit against Vodacom, has agreed to assist the men with funding. However, a legal row between Makate’s attorneys and other funders over how the payout from Vodacom should be split has meant a delay in the lawsuit against Sanlam.
Sterling Rand director Errol Elsdon said the company had summonsed Sanlam in 2014 and was waiting for a court date. He said that in view of the number of policies sold since the termination and the commission and interest that Turner and Farham should have earned, the payout could be R2-billion. identical to Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za