The court affirmed the principle that a fraudulent claim voids all related benefits under the insurance policy.

[1] These are two appeals before us, namely Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-36-05- 2018(B) (Appeal No 36) and Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-37-05-2018(B) (Appeal No 37). Both appeals involve the same appellant, Veheng Global Traders Sdn Bhd (the Insured) and the same respondents, AmGeneral Insurance Berhad and Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad (the Insurers). Both appeals are against the decisions of the Court of Appeal given on the 19 December 2017.

[2] Appeal No 36 relates to the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of liability, where the Court of Appeal ruled that the Insurers were entitled to avoid and repudiate the Insured's claim for breaches of conditions under the insurance policies in question. Appeal No 37 relates to the issue of quantum, where the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the High Court ordering the Insurers to pay the amount claimed as prayed for by the Insured.

[3] The Insurers had earlier avoided and repudiated liability in respect of a fire insurance claim submitted by the Insured on the ground that the claim was exaggerated and fraudulent, and also that there were breaches of policies warranty by the Insured. The High Court found in favour of the Insured and allowed the Insured's claim against the Insurers on the ground that the Insurers were liable under the insurance policies in question. On appeal by the Insurers, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision and order made by the High Court both on liability and quantum. Hence the present appeals before us.

Brief Facts

[4] The Insured, at the material time was in the business of import and export of used car parts. At the material time, it took out the following four insurance policies (the Policies) with the Insurers:

(i) Fire Insurance Material Damage Policy No: HB-0-08-H-000005 (on stock) for the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (FMD Policy 005);

(ii) Fire Insurance Damage Policy No: HB-0-08-H-000006 (on Renovation and Equipment) for the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (FMD Policy 006);

(iii) Fire Consequential Loss Policy No: HB-07-H000-189 (Gross Profit Consequential Loss) on increased costs of working for the period from 16 August 2008 to 15 August 2009 (FLC Policy 189);

(iv) Fire Consequential Loss Policy No: HB-0-07-H000733 (Gross Profit Consequential Loss) for the period from 19 December 2008 to 18 December 2009 (FCL Policy 733).

[5] On 5 January 2009, a fire broke out at the Insured's premises at Lot 711, Jalan Batu Tiga, Rasau, Section 16, 40200 Shah Alam. The Insured submitted its claim for the insurance monies under all the four Policies, as a result of the fire.

[6] The Insurers denied liability and repudiated the policies on the grounds, inter alia, that the fire was deliberately caused by the Insured either by itself or through a servant or agent; and that the claim under the Policies was deliberately exaggerated and fraudulent and thereby amounting to a breach of Condition 15 of the FMD Policies and Condition 12 of the FCL Policies. The Insurers also contended that there were breaches of the FEA Warranties by the Insured in making the claim. The Insured filed an action in the High Court to recover the sum due under the Policies.

[7] The High Court, after full trial, allowed the Insured's claim against the Insurers. The Insurers appealed to the Court of Appeal against both decisions on liability and quantum.

[8] The Court of Appeal unanimous