The court affirmed that defects discovered and notified within the insurance coverage period allows the insured to make claims under the Contractors All Risks Policy, as notification via an agent was valid.

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. Alstom Power Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd [Alstom] was and still is a company dealing with the design, construction, testing and handover of power plants in South-East Asia and Australia. Alstom also does after - sales services of these power plants. The Plaintiff is the licensed agent and authorized representative in Malaysia for Hamon Thermal Europe, Brussels, Belgium. The Plaintiff supplements and provides support services to its clients in the region who may require specialized assistance for the design, engineering, installation/modification of HAMON supplied cooling towers. Cooling towers are integral components of power plants. The Defendant is an insurance company.

2. On or about 14.7.2004, the Plaintiff was commissioned by Alstom to undertake repair works at Alstom's FRP Cooling Tower at Lumut 3, Combined Cycle Power Plant during its July 2004 Outage. The outage period was scheduled for 16.7.2004 to 2.8.2004. The commissioned work entailed the supply of HAMON Cooling Tower parts and replacement materials, supervision, labour and plant and handling equipment for the Cooling Tower Outage Repair Works [the Contract Works]. The value of the Contract Works was RM 775,342.80. The Plaintiff was expected to complete and deliver the Contract Works to Alstom by 2.8.2004.

3. The Plaintiff secured a Contractor's All Risk [CAR] Policy from the Defendant through the Defendant's authorized agent, one Chandra Rao Sinnudo [PW5] The CAR Policy was to provide cover for the Plaintiff against all losses inclusive of material damage that necessitated repair/replacement. It goes without saying that the damage covered under the Policy must one which occurred within the period of cover. The CAR Policy was valid for the period from 8.7.2004 to 7.8.2004.

4. Mr. Charles Penafort [PW1], the Managing Director of the Plaintiff testified that on or about 3.8.2004, Alstom verbally notified the Plaintiff's Site Manager, Mr. Sithanathan Mohan [PW3] that they had detected defects in the Contract Works undertaken by the Plaintiff during the outage period. Alstom required the Plaintiff to rectify the defects immediately and would issue a detailed defects list "soon thereafter". PW1 then contacted Mr. Chandra Rao [PW5] by telephone informing him that the Plaintiff would be making a claim on the Policy. Mr. Chandra Rao is the Defendant's agent who arranged for the Policy in the first place. PW5 purportedly represented to the Plaintiff that since there was already oral notification of a claim under the Policy, that list could follow later. PW5 was further informed that the Plaintiff would be proceeding with the rectification works. PW5 purportedly acknowledged and noted the Plaintiff's intention and advised the Plaintiff to indicate the estimated costs at a later point in time. The Plaintiff commenced and completed the rectification works. On 23.8.2004, Mr. William Fok Chun Hang [PW2], the Senior Procurement Manager in Alstom formally informed the Plaintiff of the defects. Upon receipt of this written notification, PW1 reiterated its intention to claim vide letter dated 27.8.2004 sent to the Defendant's Branch Manager at Shah Alam, Mr. Subramaniam a/l Isanna [DW2]. A copy of the formal report was said to have been attached to the fax but this was denied by DW2.

5. Sometime in September 2004, the Defendant's loss adjusters, Mestari Adjusters Sdn Bhd formally visited site of the rectification works. A final claim of RM 587,029,69 was then submitted to the