The insurer cannot deny a claim on grounds not stated in the repudiation letter, nor without credible evidence of misrepresentation.

Liza Chan Sow Keng J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an accident that took place on 5 October 2018. This Action was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as insurer for relief as follows:

i. A declaration that the Defendant's revocation of the Settlement Offer dated 22 February 2019 and/or repudiation of the Plaintiff's claim and/or Insurance Policy is unlawful, void and of no effect;

ii. The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM1,505,250.00; and/or

iii. Alternatively, the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff other such sums deemed reasonable by this Honourable Court.

[2] After a full trial held over 4 days conducted virtually online by using the Zoom video conferencing platform during which, the Plaintiff called 2 witnesses whilst the Defendant called 4 witnesses, I had on 10 February 2023 allowed the Plaintiff's claim with costs, and given broad reasons for my decision. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff is the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No TBR 1 ("the Car").

[4] The Plaintiff purchased a Comprehensive Premier insurance policy No W1817092 01-C1 ("the policy") from the Defendant through which the Car was insured for a value of RM1,790,000.00 with effect from 30 August 2018.

[5] On 5 October 2018, the Car, driven by one, Lee Koon Teng was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle bearing registration No NCJ 4733 along Maju Express Way Sdn Bhd ("MEX Highway") which resulted in severe damage to the Car ("the accident").

[6] On 13 October 2018, the Plaintiff had notified the Defendant of the accident. The Plaintiff then issued a Motor Accident Notification/Claim Form on the same date to the Defendant. The Defendant had also taken possession of the Car.

[7] On 22 February 2019, the Defendant had offered in writing a settlement value of RM1,505,250.00 ("the Settlement Offer") to the Plaintiff.

[8] The Plaintiff accepted the Settlement Offer by executing the "Beyond Economic Repair Discharge Voucher" issued by the Defendant.

[9] Two months later, by letter dated 26 April 2019, the Defendant repudiated the Plaintiff's claim and revoked the Settlement Offer on the basis that:

i. The driver (PW-2) had only lodged a police report on 8 October 2018 more than 24 hours after the said Accident;

ii. PW-2 had driven the Plaintiff's Vehicle against the flow of traffic due to him being intoxicated at the time of the said Accident;

iii. PW-2 was charged by the police under R10;

iv. The Plaintiff and PW-2 had misrepresented the nature of the accident in the claim form which amounts to a fundamental breach of contract and consequently a fraudulent claim.

[10] Dissatisfied with the turn of events, the Plaintiff filed this action.

Plaintiff's Case

[11] In essence, the Plaintiff's case is that:

(i) It is entitled to be indemnified the loss or damage by the Plaintiff based on the following clause of the policy:

"Section 1: Loss or Damage to Your Own Vehicle

1. Covered

We will cover your vehicle when any incident happens during the period of insurance and causes loss or damage to your vehicle as listed below:

Events we cover

Accidental damage that is caused unintentionally to your vehicle including:

Accidental collision or overturning..."

(ii) The Defendant's grounds to repudiate the policy are baseless, and an afterthought by the Defendant, in an attempt to wrongfully deny the Plaintiff of its lawful claim pursuant to the policy.

Defendant's case

[12] The Defendant in its Defence in summary pleaded:

(i) The version of the accident reported