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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.