MALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL vs TIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 MarsdenLR 910

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL – Appellant
Versus
TIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Reuben Netto,JS Naicker,G Logananth,Silva Velu,Rosmaria Daud ,Respondent Advocate: M Menon,Manoharan Veerasamy,Prakash Ramadas

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are some example case names that are commonly cited in discussions about the scope of employment and contractual connection, formatted as you requested:

The Employee’s Liability Case (!)
The Scope of Employment Case (!)
The Contractual Connection Case (!)
The Incidents During Employment Case (!)
The Activities and Employment Relationship Case (!)

Please note that these are illustrative titles based on common legal principles and the context of your query. If you need actual case names, I can provide general examples, but I cannot cite specific legal cases without referencing external sources.

Table of Content
1. facts leading to insurance policy interpretation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. understanding of liability exclusions in insurance law. (Para 18 , 19 , 23)
3. court’s interpretation of authorized driver coverage. (Para 28 , 41 , 46)
4. final decision affirmed insurer's liability. (Para 107)

[1] This judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as Justice Zainun Ali and Justice Ramly Hj Ali have since retired. This is the unanimous decision of the remaining judges of the panel.

[2] For ease of reference, we shall refer to parties as they were referred to in the High Court. This is an appeal by the insurer Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool, the plaintiff in the suit below pursuant to leave granted by this Court on 6 October 2017.

[3] The sole question allowed by this Court is as follows:

"Where a contract of insurance reproduces or substantially incorporates the exclusion of liability provided for under clauses (aa), (bb) and (cc) of the proviso to s 91(1), RTA , are those exclusions to be interpreted as applying equally to authorized drivers without the need for express exclusion of such liability."

Backgroud Facts

[4] The facts which led to the abov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 MarsdenLR 910

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAMALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL – AppellantVersusTIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL – Appellant
Versus
TIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO – Respondent