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

2025 MarsdenLR 1046

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ETIQA GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMAD SHAHFIZAL ABDUL RASHID & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-265-05-2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Harjinder Singh Kuldip Singh,Samantha Sam Huey Lee,Nur Erina Khairul Annuar ,Respondent Advocate: Wong Weng Foong,M/s NM Tiong & Co

An insurance policy is void if purchased after an accident, breaching the principle of utmost good faith, which requires full disclosure of material facts.

Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 - Section 96(3) - Insurance policy enforceability - Plaintiff sought declaration that insurance policy was void as it was purchased after the accident occurred - The court held that the insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the accident as it was purchased after the incident. The principle of utmost good faith was breached by the 1st Defendant for failing to disclose a material fact regarding the accident when purchasing the insurance policy. (Paras 41-75)

(B) The court emphasized that the MIB Agreement does not override the statutory rights of the insurer under Section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987. (Paras 63-67)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff was the insurer of a vehicle involved in an accident. The 1st Defendant purchased the insurance policy after the accident occurred, failing to disclose this fact. The 2nd Defendant sought to claim against the 1st Defendant. (Paras 4-12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the accident and the 1st Defendant breached the duty of utmost good faith by not disclosing the accident. The MIB Agreement does not prevent the Plaintiff from seeking a declaration that the policy is void. (Paras 75)

Issues: The main issues were whether the insurance policy was effective at the time of the accident and whether the 1st Defendant breached the principle of utmost good faith. (Paras 41-62)

Ratio Decidendi: The insurance policy takes effect from the time of issuance, and the 1st Defendant's failure to disclose a prior accident constituted a breach of utmost good faith, justifying the Plaintiff's application for a declaration of the policy's voidness. (Paras 41-61)

Result: Application allowed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya J:

[1] This was an application by the Plaintiff via Originating Summons for a declaration in respect of the enforceability of an insurance policy under s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ("this Application").

[2] The 1st Defendant did not file any affidavit in respect of this Application, and neither did he appear in person or by way of legal representation. Hence, only the 2nd Defendant opposed this Application.

[3] After hearing the submissions from learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant and having considered the affidavit evidence presented by both parties, I found in favour of the Plaintiff. These are the grounds for my decision.

[A] Salient Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff is the insurer for the motorcar bearing registration number AMC 3014, which is registered under the name of the 1st Defendant, pursuant to insurance policy number T0021317 ("Policy No T0021317").

[5] On 8 November 2022, at approximately 11:20 am, a road traffic accident occurred at Jalan Ampang involving motorcar No AMC 3014 driven by the 1st Defendant and motorcycle No VGH 5435 ridden by the 2nd Defendant.

[6] The 1st Defendant made a police report regarding the accident on the same day at 6:24 pm, stating that he was driving motorcar No AMC 3014 from Petronas Taman Dagang heading towards Taman Kosas when the accident occurred at a traffic light junction. The 1st Defendant claimed that he heard a siren from behind and moved to give way, and at the same time, a motorcycle No VGH 5435, came from his right side and collided with the right front section of his car.

[7] The 2nd Defendant also lodged a police report on 9 November 2022 at 9:31 am, stating that he was riding motorcycle No VGH 5435 from Bandar Baru Ampang towards Perkeso Jalan Ampang when, at a green light, motorcar No AMC 3014 emerged from a junction at high speed, and he was unable to avoid the collision. As a result, he suffered injuries to his left hand and right leg and had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance.

[8] Following the accident, the 2nd Defendant, through his solicitors, Messrs N M Tiong & Co, served a notice under s 96(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987 , dated 13 January 2023, on the Plaintiff regarding his intention to claim against the 1st Defendant.

[9] In response to this notice, the 2nd Defendant's solicitors also sent a letter to the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of insurance coverage for the vehicle No AMC 3014 at the material time of the accident. The insurer would naturally require time to examine the facts and documents before confirming whether the accident is covered by the policy, even if there is a policy in existence.

[10] Upon investigation, the Plaintiff discovered that:

(i) the insurance Policy No T0021317 was purchased by the 1st Defendant on 8 November 2022 at 12:39 pm, which is approximately 1 hour and 19 minutes after the accident occurred at 11:20 am;

(ii) the previous insurance policy for motorcar No AMC 3014 had lapsed on 17 October 2022, and the vehicle was being driven without valid insurance coverage at the time of the accident;

(iii) the Certificate of Insurance and Schedule for Policy No T0021317 clearly specified that the policy was only effective from 12:39pm on 8 November 2022 until 11:59pm on 7 November 2023; and

(iv) when purchasing the insurance policy, the 1st Defendant did not disclose to the Plaintiff that the motorcar had been involved in an accident earlier that day.

[11] On 9 February 2023, the 1st Defendant made a statutory declaration acknowledging that his motorcar No AMC 3014 did not have insurance coverage at the time of the accident, and that he only renewed the insurance with the Plaintiff after the accident occurred.

[12] Based on these facts, the Plaintiff filed this Application seeking declarations under s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 .

[13] The Notice under s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 was served on both Defendants via registered post on 18 April 2023.

[14]

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 Back to top