Etiqa Takaful Bhd Abuseman bin Jamaluddin 1. ) Etiqa Takaful Bhd 2. ) Ambrose Anak Jewon 3. ) Abuseman bin Jamaluddin

Etiqa Takaful Bhd Abuseman bin Jamaluddin 1. ) Etiqa Takaful Bhd 2. ) Ambrose Anak Jewon 3. ) Abuseman bin Jamaluddin

The Court held that section 94 RTA 1987 prevents an insurer from relying on policy conditions to avoid liability to third parties; accordingly the High Court's declaration disentitling the 2nd Respondent was set aside and the 2nd Respondent's rights under s96(1) RTA 1987 remain enforceable, although the declaration voiding the policy as against the insured (1st Respondent) was affirmed inter partes.

Citation
Q-02(A)-2351-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/2nd Respondent: Abuseman bin Jamaluddin; Respondent/applicant: Etiqa Takaful Bhd; 1st Respondent: Ambrose anak Jewon
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Case Number
Q-02(A)-2351-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by 2nd Respondent allowed in part; High Court order set aside insofar as it disentitled the 2nd Respondent; High Court declaration voiding the policy against the insured affirmed.
Legal Topics
Third Party Rights, Policy Avoidance, Statutory Interpretation, Declaratory Relief, Section 94 RTA, Section 96 RTA
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Road Traffic Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Third Party Rights Policy Avoidance Statutory Interpretation Declaratory Relief +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abuseman bin Jamaluddin

Appellant/2nd Respondent

Etiqa Takaful Bhd

Respondent/applicant

Ambrose anak Jewon

1st Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an insurer may rely on a declaration that a policy is void to avoid liability to a third party under s96(3) RTA 1987
  2. 2 Whether s94 RTA 1987 renders policy conditions inoperative against third parties so as to preserve third party rights under s96(1) RTA 1987
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred by failing to consider s94 RTA 1987 before granting a declaration that disentitled the third party

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that section 94 RTA 1987 prevents an insurer from relying on policy conditions to avoid liability to third parties; accordingly the High Court's declaration disentitling the 2nd Respondent was set aside and the 2nd Respondent's rights under s96(1) RTA 1987 remain enforceable, although the declaration voiding the policy as against the insured (1st Respondent) was affirmed inter partes.

Court Disposition

Appeal by 2nd Respondent allowed in part; High Court order set aside insofar as it disentitled the 2nd Respondent; High Court declaration voiding the policy against the insured affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and High Court Order set aside in respect of the 2nd Respondent
  • High Court declaration that the policy is void and unenforceable against the 1st Respondent (insured) affirmed