Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4589
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
STANTA METAL DRUM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD – Respondent
[Suit No: D-22-1602-2005]
The repudiation of an insurance claim is invalid if the defendant fails to provide valid grounds under the policy, including the definition of 'damage' which encompasses 'loss'.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1996 - Product Liability Policy - Claim for indemnity under a product liability insurance policy - Court ruled that repudiation of the plaintiff's claim by the defendant was invalid as it lacked merit, clarifying that damage includes loss under the policy's interpretation. The plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the contamination of materials in the supplied drums qualifies as damage to material property under the insurance policy. (Paras 1, 15)
(B) Principles of Insurance Law - The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that their claim falls within the policy terms, and the contra proferentum rule applies in favor of the insured if ambiguity exists. (Paras 12(v), 15(b))
(C) Claim Settlement Procedure - The concept of 'without prejudice' communications was affirmed as not constituting an admission of liability, preserving the plaintiff's rights. (Paras 12(x), 15(e))
(D) Quantum of Claim - Plaintiff awarded RM290,000 with interest at 4% per annum from the date of claim submission to judgment and further interest post-judgment. (Para 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim based on product liability policy (Para 1 , 2) |
[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant insurer based on a 'Product Liability Policy' limited to the sum of RM300,000.00 subject to the terms of the policy.
[2] The central issue in this case revolves on the terms and its interpretation of the policy in respect of liability. On the issue of quantum it must be said that the defendant had bluntly repudiated the policy though a detailed claim similar to that pleaded in the statement of claim was forwarded to the defendant. In addition the defendant has in the statement of defence not objected to the particulars in respect of the quantum and attempts to argue that some or all are not covered under the policy. And the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently objects to the manner in which the defendant conducts its case to defeat the plaintiff's claim at several parts of the submission which is quite apparent on the factual matrix of the case; and in respect of quantum says:
"We wish to highlight at this juncture that quantum of the claim was never in question in the Agreed Issues for Trial or pleaded by the defendant save that the defendant argues that the total amount allowed under the policy is RM300,000.00 less excess of RM10,000.00 per claim. The plaintiff is agreeable to limit the principal sum of its claim to RM290,000.00. Apart from that we would object to any submissions by the defendant in respect of the exact quantum of the claim and request this Honourable Court to exclude it in its determination of the issues for trial".
