SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 2191

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
NILAI PORCELAIN INN SDN BHD – Respondent


Table of Content
1. policy terms and claim process. (Para 3)
2. fire damage claims and insurance coverage. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. definition of grounds for appeal. (Para 8)
4. court analysis of expert testimony credibility. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

[3] In this judgment we will refer to the parties as they were in the High court.

[4] To obtain the policy, a consideration of RM1,295.75 in annual premiums were paid by the plaintiff. The amount insured was RM365,000. The period of coverage was from 31 May 2006 until 30 May 2007, both dates inclusive.

[5] In the early morning of 8 February 2007, a fire broke out in the insured premises, destroying the insured goods and other goods belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff estimated its loss to be about RM424.000.

[6] The plaintiff then made a claim against the defendant for the total insured amount of RM365,000 but the claim was rejected by the defendant.

[7] The plaintiff claimed that the fire was caused by a short circuit in the electrical wiring at the premises. However, the defendant said that the fire was caused by the deliberate act of the plaintiff through its agents using kerosene placed at several places in the insured premises.

In The High cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top