ING INSURANCE BHD vs RATHINASAMY KASINATHAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 1290

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ING INSURANCE BHD – Appellant
Versus
RATHINASAMY KASINATHAN – Respondent

Table of Content
1. claim under insurance policies by a nominee. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. the appeal addresses the validity of insurance policy claims. (Para 2 , 5)
3. the insured values and claims are pivotal to assessing the appeal. (Para 7 , 8)
4. defense of fraud and misstatement in insurance context. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 22)
5. meaning of materiality and misrepresentation in insurance disclosures. (Para 16 , 19 , 20)
6. basis clause in insurance contracts. (Para 27 , 28 , 31 , 32)
7. the trial court's credibility assessment of evidence contradicts factual findings. (Para 39 , 41)

[1] This appeal is against the decision of the Seremban High Court dated 21 August 2013 in allowing the respondent's claim as nominee of one Devadas a/l Anthony Samey ("deceased") under four policies issued to the deceased by the appellant.

[2] The respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant, the defendant at the High Court. For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

Brief Facts

[3] The facts in this case are very simple. Approximately, two months before his death, the deceased took out insurance policies with three companies, namely the defendant in the sum of RM1,086,0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 1290

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAING INSURANCE BHD – AppellantVersusRATHINASAMY KASINATHAN – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ING INSURANCE BHD – Appellant
Versus
RATHINASAMY KASINATHAN – Respondent