A composite policy ensures separate claims can be made by co-insured parties without one party's negligence affecting another's rights.

[1] The plaintiff's claim under a Contractors All Risks ("CAR") Policy against the defendant is for the losses it sustained as a result of the collapse of a reclaimed platform that it was building from the seabed in the Johor Straits.

[2] The CAR Policy was "For Their Respective Rights and Interests-FTRRI" of the Employer for the entire Lido Boulevard Project as the principal and its various Contractors and their Subcontractors, the consultants and other Professionals named in the Policy for total value of RM1.83 billion for a period of insurance from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2016.

[3] The Lido Boulevard Project consisted of a proposed mixed development of office, luxury condominiums, cultural centre and a green recreational park.

[4] The plaintiff's portion of the Project ("the Reclamation Works") was insured for RM238 million with a period of cover from 1 March 2010 to 31 May 2011. It is not disputed that the Reclamation Works formed the first stage of the Project.

Parties And Project

[5] The plaintiff is a dredging contractor and is part of the Jan De Nul Group of Companies based in Luxembourg and is said to be one of the leading dredging contractors in the world.

[6] The plaintiff, as the main contractor, had been appointed by Central Malaysian Properties Sdn Bhd ("CMP") the Employer of the Project under a construction contract vide a Letter of Award dated 9 February 2010 with respect to the Reclamation Works.

[7] The Reclamation Works comprised the reclamation of a plot of land of 38.11 hectares along a 2 km stretch of existing shoreline bordering Jalan Abu Baker and Jalan Skudai in Johor Bahru.

[8] There was some delay in the commencement of the Reclamation Works as CMP could not make the agreed payments on time to the plaintiff and it was resolved with the giving of a Personal Guarantee dated 2 September 2010 by Mr Vincent Tan, who has a controlling interest in CMP.

[9] The Reclamation Works commenced on 8 October 2010. The loss arose out of a Reclamation Failure Incident ("RFI") on 12 November 2010, at about 10 pm., wherein the reclaimed platform constructed by the plaintiff gave way and moved downslope into the straits resulting in the tragic loss of one life.

[10] The plaintiff duly and promptly informed the defendant in writing of its claim on 15 November 2010 in compliance with the notification requirement under cl 5 of the CAR Policy. The defendant's loss adjuster, McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd ("MSM"), was in touch with the plaintiff and as requested, it was furnished with the relevant information and documents by the plaintiff. For reasons best known to the defendant, it chose to exclude the plaintiff from all dealings with respect to the claim under the Policy and instead dealt only with CMP.

[11] The plaintiff was later to learn that the defendant had, on 11 August 2011, rejected a similar claim by CMP under the CAR Policy in which CMP and the other contractors were co-insured under their respective rights and interests. The reason given was that the plaintiff was guilty of wilful act or wilful negligence as well as defective workmanship and faulty design which led to the collapse of the platform into the sea. However this was not communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff only became aware of the said letter of rejection by the defendant when CMP forwarded a copy of it to the plaintiff on 9 September 2011.

[12] By letter dated 3 November 2011 the plaintiff took umbrage with the defendant's finding of wilful act or wilful negligence and defective workmanship and faulty design tha