MSIG INSURANCE (M) BERHAD (Company No.: 46983-W) MATRIX COOLING (M) SDN BHD (Company No.: 701687-T)

MSIG INSURANCE (M) BERHAD (Company No.: 46983-W) MATRIX COOLING (M) SDN BHD (Company No.: 701687-T)

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred: the EAR policy and schedule clearly excluded PEP, no additional premium was paid, plaintiff failed to prove unilateral amendment or that PEP was covered; replacement cost of the fan stack (PEP) is not recoverable; plaintiff failed to plead and strictly prove claimed special damages of RM251,575.20 and is limited to the MSM Adjusters’ adjusted indemnity of RM63,272.00 (net of RM10,000 deductible); appeal allowed in part and cross‑appeal dismissed, with payment and costs orders as stated.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: MSIG Insurance (M) Berhad; Respondent / Plaintiff: Matrix Cooling (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance/contract) / High Court Appeal After Full Trial With Cross‑appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Cross‑appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Erection All Risks Policy, Principal’s Existing Property Exclusion, Rectification of Contract, Pleading and Proof of Special Damages, Pre‑judgment Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Erection All Risks Policy Principal’s Existing Property Exclusion Rectification of Contract Pleading and Proof of Special Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MSIG Insurance (M) Berhad

Appellant / Defendant

Matrix Cooling (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance/contract) / High Court Appeal After Full Trial With Cross‑appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Principal’s Existing Property (PEP) was agreed to be covered under the EAR policy
  2. 2 Whether the insurer unilaterally amended or altered the policy to exclude PEP
  3. 3 Whether the insured is bound by the policy schedule and estopped from disputing exclusions

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred: the EAR policy and schedule clearly excluded PEP, no additional premium was paid, plaintiff failed to prove unilateral amendment or that PEP was covered; replacement cost of the fan stack (PEP) is not recoverable; plaintiff failed to plead and strictly prove claimed special damages of RM251,575.20 and is limited to the MSM Adjusters’ adjusted indemnity of RM63,272.00 (net of RM10,000 deductible); appeal allowed in part and cross‑appeal dismissed, with payment and costs orders as stated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Cross‑appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant (appellant insurer) to pay Plaintiff RM63,272.00 (net of RM10,000 deductible)
  • Interest at 5% per annum on RM63,272.00 from 14/09/2020 until full payment