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

2017 MarsdenLR 1290

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


[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 RM1,086,000.00, Allianz in the sum of RM500,000.00 and Maybank Takaful in the sum of RM150,000.00, making a total insured value of approximately RM1.75 million.

[4] The policies issued by the defendant to the deceased were as follows:

(Hereinafter referred to as "the policies")

[5] In all the policies with the three companies, the plaintiff was named as the nominee.

[6] On 4 April 2007, the deceased was apparently killed in a hit-and-run accident involving a lorry while riding a motorcycle borrowed from a coworker. The driver of the lorry that was allegedly involved in the accident was nev

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