Insurers are not liable for passenger injuries if excluded by policy terms, even with special agreements in place.

[1] We heard the submissions of parties on 9 March 2017, of this appeal based on the questions of law framed, and we reserved our decision to a date to be fixed. We now append below our decision and grounds for the same.

[2] Background Facts:

(a) On 26 November 2010, the Registered Owner (Sharul) of a motorcar bearing Register No WIG 42225 (the Car) took out a motor Insurance Policy (The Policy) on the car with the respondent herein for the period 26 November 2010 to 25 November 2011. (See "Ikatan Teras Bersama (Penghakiman)", p 14)

(b) On 13 December 2010, Sharul loaned the car to the appellant (Iskandar bin Mohd Nuli, the 2nd defendant in the High Court) to drive into Singapore with his wife (Zuraini) as a passenger. The car was involved in a road traffic accident with a Crane Truck and Zuraini suffered injuries, loss and damage.

(c) On 31 January 2013, Zuraini instituted an action for negligence in the High Court of Singapore (the Singapore Suit) against the appellant as driver of the car and also the driver of the Crane Truck.

(d) The respondent was notified of the claim and instructed their Singapore solicitors Global Alliance Bhd (GLA) to enter an appearance for the appellant.

(e) On 27 September 2013, GLA wrote to the appellant that the policy did not cover passenger liability. (See "Ikatan Teras Dokumen" Vol 2, pp 233-235). The respondent also gave the appellant the option of appointing his own solicitors to take over the defence or for GLA to continue to defend the Singapore suit with all rights reserved. This was followed by two reminders dated 17 December 2013 and 20 December 2013.

(f) On 31 December 2013, the appellant wrote to GLA asserting that by law and through contractual obligations with the respondent, the appellant was covered under the policy and was entitled to legal representation.

(g) Meanwhile GLA continued to represent the appellant in the Singapore suit until 5 May 2015, when the solicitors appointed by the appellant took over the conduct of the appellant defence.

[3] At the High Court, the respondent had sought for declaratory relief, amongst others, a declaration that the respondent is not liable to satisfy any judgment or part thereof obtained in Singapore by Zuraini against the appellant. On 28 November 2014, the High Court found that, under the motor insurance policy between the respondent and Sharul, the respondent is liable to satisfy and such judgment obtained by Zuraini. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 16 December 2015, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court.

[4] The present status of the Singapore suit, on query made to the counsel, was that the appellant and his wife Zuraini had on 12 May 2016 entered into a consent judgment whereupon the appellant was to pay Zuraini damages in the sum of RM473,000.00 plus costs and disbursements. The action against theCrane Truck Driver was withdrawn.