HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ARZIAH MOHAMED APANDI, JC
CHONG KIEN YONG – Appellant
Versus
TAN CHONG EKSPRES AUTO SERVIS SDN BHD – Respondent
Under the principles of subrogation, an insurer who has indemnified the insured for loss or damage to property steps into the shoes of the insured and may enforce the insured's rights against a third party responsible for the loss, provided a valid insurance policy exists, indemnification has occurred, and the action is brought in the name of the insured. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
A contract of bailment arises by express or implied agreement when goods (such as a motor vehicle) are delivered by the bailor to the bailee for a specific purpose (such as service or repair), with the obligation to return the goods in the same or improved condition upon accomplishment of the purpose, pursuant to sections 101, 102, 104 and 105 of the Contracts Act 1950. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The bailee owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over the bailed goods equivalent to the care it would take of its own property, and is liable for loss or damage resulting from failure to do so, even if caused by an accidental event such as fire, where no evidence is adduced of reasonable precautions taken to prevent or mitigate the loss. (!) (!) (!) (!)
A prior settlement between the insured (bailor) and the bailee does not extinguish the insurer's subrogation rights if subrogation vested prior to the settlement. (!) (!) (!)
Introduction
[1] In the usual walks of life, the Appellant sends his motorcar for repair at the car maker's workshop as his insurance policy covers the repair due to accidents. It never occurred to the Appellant that it became a double whammy when his motorcar became beyond repair at the same workshop instead of being repaired. His motorcar was declared a total loss due to the accidental fire ignited at a nearby premises, which spread all over.
[2] As with other reasonable men, the Appellant would claim losses from his insurer due to the total loss of his motorcar. The Appellant was paid by his insurer and compensated by the workshop for losing his motorcar. The Appellant's insurer would claim against the workshop as the tortfeasor for the payment made to the Appellant under the subrogation laws. However, the workshop refused to reimburse the insurer since the Appellant made and accepted compensation. Hence, this action is in court.
[3] In stepping into the shoes of the Appellant under the law of subrogation, the Appellant's insurer filed this action for reimbursement of payment from the Respondent (through its insurer). The existence of a bailee-bailo
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.