Decision

Leong Wai Hong J:

[Declaration That Insurance Policy Not Enforceable Under Section 96 RTA]

The Mischief

[1] A bought a car. A insured the car with B, an insurer. A then sold the car to C but C failed/neglected/refused to register the change of ownership of the car to C's name. Consequently, C did not insure the car in C's name. C then driving the car hit D/an innocent third-party accident victim. The accident happened during the period of the insurance policy bought by A from B.

[2] D can sue C but may not recover as C is uninsured. If D sues A, is B liable as insurer? Can B argue it is not liable as A has ceased to have an insurable interest in the car at the time of the accident as the car had been sold by A at the time of the accident although the accident happened during the period of the insurance policy? In short, can B argue the insurance policy is void and unenforceable under s 96 of the Road Transport Act 1987 ["RTA"]?

The Cure

[3] The above issue was resolved in 2022 by the Federal Court in the landmark decision of Amgeneral Insurance Berhad v. Sa' Amran Atan & Ors And Other Appeals; [2022] 5 MLJ 825; [2022] 8 CLJ 175; [2022] 6 AMR 1, FC.

[4] Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ del